Raven

My question, then, is knowing as much as you do about the origins of Christianity can you except it as anything more then an artifact of a leader who wanted to bring some faith to his people and, eventually, a religious text that has been added to multiple times. You have to know as well as I do that there would be no need of divine power to convince people that kind of stuff was true, nor any real need to write down anything that even resembled fact in more then the most distorted way. It's like that lovely article that someone (SC I believe) pointed us too in the aliens thread where the guy was discounting the UFO crash in Roswell. All you need is a few people willing to exaggerate, a few more willing to lie outright, and a climate in which those type of lies will be accepted as the truth.

So vampires are rubbish, as, no doubt, are diablarists, demons, and similar creatures that traditionally had a place in the Christian mythos. On the other hand, you believe in such events such as the sun stopping in the sky, people living for hundreds of years, and similar nonse... I mean absolutely factual information that can be derived from an oral history of highly reliable children's tails (and not just any book of children's tails, but one which disdained the use of vowels no less). I'm sorry, I'm a skeptic, but there is more reason to believe in vampires then a series of legendary events that lack even the paltry evidence that suggests the existence of modern supernatural manifestations. And even if some of these stories have a basis in fact (as most myths do, I admit, though often only the very barest link to the real event) how accurately do you think they were retold, and how many were added or left out by creative storytellers trying to please there audience? Such information is worse then hearsay.

I don't know, could a ship of the line shoot down a modern fighter plane? Didn't think so.

I'm not going to argue aliens, UFOs, and Bifeld-Brown ships (and that's NOT the same as antigravity by the way), that's not my thing anyway. I will say that I don't believe in alien visitations the same reason that I don't believe in ghosts or similar nonsense. There is no good reason to believe and too many alternate explanations. However, I will disagree with this flawed belief that aliens will somehow coincide with our idea of an advanced society (actually, I should say your idea of an advanced society, it's not mine). First of all, aliens are ALIEN, completely and totally inhuman. Before you start screaming ort clouds and panspermia consider that seeding of that sort is with only the most basic sort of life, and whatever develops from it on other worlds is likely to be vastly different then us. Now, assuming that aliens are even remotely comprehensible (which I'm not sure if it would be the case, but it's rather hard to discuss anything that isn't comprehensible, so were stuck with that assumption) we have to realize that they came from the same evolutionary process as we did, it just happened elsewhere (religious rambling to the side). Consider, if you will, how many species are peaceful on earth, and you will find it tends to be dumb herbivores, and not even them entirely. This suggests that there is an evolutionary reason for war: it is the ultimate means by which the fit may be separated from the unfit, and this in turn suggests that violence would be an inherent aspect of any species psychological makeup. Now, Kiran tells us that a heterogeneous alien society would destroy itself before it managed interstellar travel. Right. We all believe you Kiran. It seams more likely that, while they would indeed have WMDs, they could go without using them just as easily as we do. We have survived for the last 50 or so years with the existence of nuclear weapons and the threat of WW3, but we have been very politically heterogeneous without blowing ourselves up. This could easily last the next 100 years (especially with all the different defense systems people are trying to come up with). How long will it take for our race to have a secure extraterrestrial habitat? How long before we're colonizing mars (either terraforming or domes)? Once a species has a sufficiently spread out population that is independent of its homeworld the thread of WMDs is reduced radically. Now, it may be the case that aliens really are peaceful tree-hugging, flower-smelling, hick-probing pansies, but it seams like something of a stretch to assume that with the overwhelming lack of information.

Ok, the article was clearly leftist propaganda, but it also had a very good point. The practice of strong arming schools (and can you come up with a better term for it?) into giving out lists of student names is just plain low. This article uses the term brainwash way too many times, but students shouldn't have unrestricted exposure to military propaganda like that. Don't take this wrong, I have nothing wrong with recruiters or people joining the military, but they should do so with there eyes open, not clouded by spiffy looking brochures are promises of college money.

Well, what can I say, there are a couple on every sizeable board with the notable exception of this one. I wish your sister luck and hope she comes back in good health (not to mention timeliness).

What a surprise

Well I think this is a lovely idea.

Well Lotharr, I agree that poverty stricken areas do indeed have higher crime rates, which can only lead me to imagine that these areas need to increase the average income per capita. Now, the best way to do this is to cultivate businesses. The best way to allow businesses to develop (and move in) is to reduce taxes and (especially in this case) crime. Now, it's highly demonstrable that gun rights reduce crime, and therefore the logical thing to do would be to pass shall-issue laws and reduce government spending (and thus taxes). Oh, and Jaguar, that's a delightful article you've found there, it's always nice to hear something positive from our African American citizens.

Well said Jaguar!

Well yea, let's look at this for a moment. Every major war, as in every one that wasn't short. Iraq will not be able to put up that kind of opposition, not in a million years.

Good, go to war for oil, but get it over with already. Oil is a sufficient reason for war, it's our government doing what is best for local corporations and, ultimately, for the populace.

Flame away eh? When exactly was the last time anyone got flamed on this forum? I don't know enough about E&B or Jumpgate to have much of an opinion, but why in the name of all that's unholy is cool above great and great above excellent? I mean, shouldn't excellent be above great, and great above cool? [ 12-04-2002, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Physics, math, and programming. Sounds fun.

Well, I have to admit that I agree with Lotharr as well, it's a disgusting practice, though admittedly my views might be a little different if I were on the other end of things.

quote: Not wanting to spend money on social programs doesn't make it cheaper for society. You will just have to build more prisons to take in all these people who are basicly forced into crime. I have a rather utilitarian approach to the issue and not based on moral (like in: you deserve misery). Minimizing overall costs means you'll have to support the really poor ones IMO. Well darling, I think that criminals who would end up serving a lot of time should just be executed, especially violent criminals. It would save money, deter future criminals, and prevent repeat offenders (I haven't seen any crime statistics on corpses before, but I imagine they're pretty low). quote: I wasn't speaking about the "evolving into something better" part, that's indeed rubbish. But rather about the unrestricted employment of "survival of the fittest" in human society. Well, I don't care who survives (except perhaps me and those close to me), but my problem is with paying for those unfit individuals to survive. Let's forget about morality for a moment. It's a bloody waste of money. I made a decent suggestion on how to deal with those who do have a chance of becoming useful productive members of society, but beyond that I couldn't care less what happens to them. quote: No pity with working poors? Nope, not really. Pity is the most loathsome of emotions and I have little of it myself and find it repulsive and incomprehensible in others. quote: The parents yes, but what about the children born from such parents? Well, tough, maybe the parents should put them up for adoption. I honestly couldn't care less what happens to them. quote: You are talking about corporate infiltration into government correct? How our tax money goes into failing businesses run by degenerates. How vast amounts of corporate R+D are funded by the tax payers who don't see the pay off? LMAO Way to misinterpret me darling. No, I wasn't referring to corporate welfare or any of that. I don't honestly know enough about corporate welfare to have an opinion on it. If I were to take your opinion on it (something I'm rather loath to do for obvious reasons) then no, it's not something I would support. If you would be so kind as to post a link to a site that provides information abut such things (without being to obviously leftist) I would appreciate it. quote: The rest of your post is elitist crap but keep it up...I do like your posts....this instructional candor in AmericaInc ethics is something you can't get from CEO's these days. Well darling, I don't see any reason to be less then truthful of my opinion, and it makes for good arguments.

Okay, this is going to be a long one, here we go... quote: Good schools cost. Yea, they cost about what good private schools cost, rather then what exaggeratedly expensive public schools cost quote: I think it is a good idea. Trading can't stop so they can deal with it like the millions of Americans who have to deal with paying for more exotic weapons systems that aren't furthering our goals in the current asymmetrical warfare environment and will never overcome motivated thinkers that are reacting to oppression and abusive foreign policy. So, um, who exactly do you think pays most of the costs for these exotic weapon systems (and may I remind you that the atom bomb, then an exotic weapon system, saved us a horrible land war in Japan)? Oh yea, it's the wealthy, because people with money pay most of the taxes. Lets here it for tax breaks for the poor and more taxing on the wealthy... Furthermore, making money the way the stock market is today isn't so easy that anyone can afford to have some siphoned off to pay the government. I know I can't. quote: People don't need charity when they have justice. Darling, it's not called justice when you rob one group to prop up the degenerate lifestyle of another. I admit that there are people who arenÔÇÖt degenerate and lazy on welfare and other social programs, but they are being encouraged to be degenerate and lazy. quote: 1. Too generous social programs have indeed the side effect of reducing incentives to work but completely abolishing them would condemn many people to misery. Since it is much easier to find a job if you're not homeless, I think a social program should avert the worst consequences of poverty but not try to fight poverty itself. That's what education and growing economy is for. I'm not sure how this is a problem? People who can't be economically successful get exactly what the deserve. Misery. If there is really a job for them that someone who hasn't flushed there life down the gutter can take, then if they work hard they can get it. Besides, I've seen plenty of beggars, and very few of them seem to be in a situation where they can't work, just where they don't want to. quote: Are you a proponent of social darvinism? I ask this because while I agree that greed is human nature, but I also think that human instincts shouldn't rule supreme and unchallenged or otherwise there will be anarchy and everybody is worse off. Bah! That isn't social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the belief that we are stunting our evolution by enacting social programs that are fundamentally a waste of time anyway. It's an interesting theory and I, for one, am rather fond of some of the policies it advocates, but the nonsense about how we are evolving towards something is rubbish. Genetic science will take over far before evolution gets us anywhere. quote: Our country allocates around 5.5% of GDP for education but still only ranges around average in international comparisons of 14-15 year olds. IMO one reason is a distinct problem with discipline of children compared to earlier times and the anti-intellectual stance among younger people. An anti-intellectual stance eh? Talk about asking for it. quote: Call me a xenophobe if you want but I think that it is quite revealing that the most successful countries in that regard like Japan, South Korea and Singapore are very homogeneous societies. You're not a xenophobe darling, and I think that is very interesting that successful countries tend to have homogenous populations. It is also my opinion that we don't need any more people here and immigration should be brought down to a trickle. quote: IMO the fallacy of comparing public and privat school performance in the US is that private schools can screen for rich people (fees) who are reasonably giftet (entry tests), while the public schools take the rest. Well, ok, so let's assume that private schools wouldn't be able to do any better then public schools as far as test scores go. That's not too bad though, because at least they will do the same bad job while costing less money. quote: I'll take a dull accountant over a charismatic leader any day of the week. The latter ones usually mean more trouble than it is worth it. And then there are those who base their morality on religion, which is the very definition of fundamentalism. Shudder.... LOL I agree in entirety. quote: We have laws on keeping kids in school until at least a certain grade (varies by state.) Who enforces them? Based on the drug problem, and guns getting into schools, etc., then I'd say nobody. If you're at school, you should be forced to stay there until the day is over. Period. (Exception for work-releases that relate to on-the-job training.) One little thing you forgot to mention is that this kind of draconian control (admittedly of use in some areas) shouldn't be extended to schools where there is no gang problem or guns in the school. quote: You got drugs or guns on campus, or anything else illegal? Busted, and gone. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. I agree in entirety. School is supposed to be a place to learn, not to buy drugs (or use them for that matter). quote: Wanna drop out of school in the 10th grade? Fine. But you still have to have a job before you do that, and you must be employed at all times. Otherwise, back to school. Now this I disagree with. No one should be forced to go to school. If there parents can't get them to go, and they don't want to be there, then they shouldn't. It would vastly improve the environment only to have people who want to learn. Furthermore, kids should be able to drop out after grade school. By that point they have a basic grasp of reading and arithmetic, and if they truly don't want to be in school they won't learn much in the following years anyway. It's a waste of time and money to keep them there just as a babysitting service. quote: As for accelerated students, who get their diploma early.... Those go to college, or to work, until they're 18. And what, pray tell, happens to those of us who needn't work to get by? I'm in college some of the time (as I have been since I was 16), and I'm old enough it isn't a problem anyway, but I took a quarter off now and again before I was 18. quote: After that, they can be a bum if they want, but not in productive society. In fact, other countries need their services, but if you're not a contributing member of society, then you're a liability. Deporting bums, now that's something I wouldn't mind me tax dollars going towards. quote: The ones that are on welfare, food stamps, etc.... Get them into high school diploma programs. Help them get a 2-year degree in selected technical or skilled labor fields. If were going to have to pay to educate them (not something that appeals to me, I must admit) then we might as well do this efficiently. Set up special high intensity job-skills training programs. Making it possible for people to get through them, but only if they really work at it, thereby weeding out those who don't deserve public assistance and similarly reducing the time necessary and thus reducing prices. Also, considering that these are the type of people who are so terrible at getting jobs, they should be employed (in return for basic food and barracks style sleeping facilities) by the very schools they are going to. This too will reduce costs and necessitate that the individuals going there are indeed willing to work. quote: Get everyone out of the vicious welfare cycle. ÔÇ£You can't get a job, because you can't make enough money to be more than what welfare is paying.ÔÇØ If you're working, but still need assistance, pro-rate that assistance, based on cost-of-living, number in family, etc. No, I disagree. If someone can keep a job then they don't need public assistance (beyond the aforementioned training program). I see no need to support someone who works simply because they arenÔÇÖt making enough money at there job. quote: On the other hand, if you're doing the best you can to raise your family with the work you can get, obeying the laws of the land, and you're still not able to feed, clothe, house, and have transportation available for your family, then I don't mind helping. So what kind of family are we talking about? A gaggle of kids is the only excuse for someone not to be able to manage (other family members can work just like anyone else) I see no reason to support people who have a lot of children. It's there choice, and if they can't manage to avoid getting pregnant (not a hard task for anyone even moderately competent) then they deserve what they get.

You think its na├»ve? You, darling, have no room to criticize anyone about being na├»ve. None. And we arenÔÇÖt assuming that private schools would be more successful, we know for a fact that they will be because of demonstrable examples. And the management couldn't get much worse then it is now, so it's not like itÔÇÖs a great risk. As for it being a war zone, well, perhaps so, but then private schools have a much better track record with discipline problems as well. If someone doesn't want to be there enough to follow the rules, then that's the end of that. Schools should be for those who want to learn, and removing those who don't really care would not only improve the environment but also reduces the cost. quote: How about we place a small tax on every stock transaction? Money would flow back into the country that made these businesses successful (Nader idea. Oh, look, our economy isn't doing to terrible, let's go axe murder it! That's a terrible idea, it's bloody hard enough to make any money off of the stock market the way things are going now, even with IT stocks, we do NOT need a new way to reduce profit even more. This would be a most unpleasant blow to our economy as it would discourage investing, which, in turn, would make things harder for businesses. You love to come up with terrible things to do to people with money, and to companies, and try and say it's for the betterment of our country. It isn't, its utter nonsense, and it's that kind of thinking that's going to kill our economy some day should anyone loopy enough to enact that kind of nonsense get enough power. I'm sorry if this is a bit of a sore subject for me, but I have most of my money in stocks and bonds (well, if we're not including property that is) and the way the market has been going has made things difficult for me at times.

Well thank you, it's always nice to be appreciated.

The keyboard isn't too small, there are very few games which require an extended keyboard, and the trackpad is easily as good as a mouse after a little while of getting used to it. I used to play unreal and unreal tournament on my laptop all the time and I never even bothered getting a mouse of any kind for it. In some ways I liked it more then a conventional mouse as it never gets sticky or any of that nonsense (though that is much less a problem with optical mice). Now, Cruis.In, optical mice are what some (irritating) people call laser mice. They don't have laser, or anything of the kind, but because they are lit with red people seam to think this means a laser. Go figure. Anyway, they do have a small optical sensor in them that takes pictures of the surface you're sliding your mouse over and compares it with the last picture, thereby determining how fast, and in which direction, you're moving the mouse. They don't get sticky (at least not like old-style ball mice would), they can be used on almost any surface, and they glow red, which looks cool.

Well, I don't have working laptop at the moment, mine broke down after a very long career of being unreliable) and I didn't get it fixed at the time simply because I didn't need a laptop. However, I had it for a good while as my only computer, and it worked swimmingly for everything (including playing games while laying in bed, a distinctly fun activity). Unfortunately it didn't have a lot of staying power, laptops are harder to upgrade and doing so costs a lot more, so by the time I got myself a desktop (after having my laptop for about a year) some of the new games werenÔÇÖt playing all that well. Looking at the specs for your system I doubt you will have any problems. My desktop is only a little bit better then that (though it's also a year old) and it still runs everything swimmingly (and will continue to do so for a while I imagine, even if I don't upgrade).

That, darling, is nonsense. First of all, the government has proven, quite definitively, that it can't successfully run the schools, and throwing money at the problem isn't going to change that. Furthermore, private schools have proven, quite definitively, that they can and do work vastly better then public schools. I've never heard of any attempt to use private schools to turn kids into consumer addicts (why bother anyway, TV is already doing that wonderfully) and I don't see that changing in a material way. On the other hand, declaring world peace is about as naïve and idealistic as it gets. You can't declare something like that and expect everyone to obey unless you can support your demand with a threat of force. This means that declaring world peace would be of no value to safely reducing our defense budget, and reducing said budget would be both a major blow to our position as a world power, and an even greater blow to our own security.

Well darling, I have to agree with you about the media, at least insofar as it's not doing a very good job at investigative reporting. However, unlike you, I don't attribute this to corporate manipulation, but rather to sensationalism. It gets ratings (don't ask me why, maybe its more entertaining or some such) and that means it gets money (I'm not exactly sure how that system works, but sufficed to say increasing ratings is important for making more money). It's as bad for businesses as anything else, as the media focusing on crime, accidents, and other failings without really paying any mind to success. It's bad for politicians for the same reason, and hell, it's bad for just about everyone else else. Now, our populace may be composed primarily of mentally sedentary and bovine individuals, but that's not exclusively the case, and most people have been hearing about how sensational the news (particularly television) has been getting for a very long time now. It really does soak in, and this is why the media is loosing credibility.

I don't know, I think it would be safest not to bring it up to begin with

My condolences... er... congratulations on your new biohaz... uh... that is your new baby, and I wish you luck dealing with all the prob... I mean I wish you great joy in razing him... oops... I mean in raising him...