Evolution is Just Junk Science

[Guest James Beck]

In article <Jason-3110071619570001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Jason@nospam.com says...

> In article <MPG.2192bfac54f3bcd898a298@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James

> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:

>

> > In article <Jason-3110071317160001@67-150-123-199.lsan.mdsg-

> > pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says...

> > > In article <leahi319r50tea720ajlukkn9hhlc65p99@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> > >

> > > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:40:45 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > >

> > > > >The president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran both have

> > > > >stated that they want to use nuclear weapons against Israel.

> > > >

> > > > The US has said that it wants to eradicate Islam.

> > > >

> > > > > As you know,

> > > > >we are obligated to protect Israel since they are an ally of America.

> > > >

> > > > Since there's been no attack, there's nothing to defend. "Defending"

> > > > against an attack that MAY happen, some nebulous time in the future,

> > > > is known as "attacking", and we're NOT obligated to START a war. (That

> > > > we've done it a few times doesn't mean that there's any treaty that

> > > > obligates us to do it.)

> > >

> > > I am shocked that so many atheists have so much trust in religious nut

> > > cases like the president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran.

> > >

> >

> > We don't have any faith in ANY relious nut cases, including the

> > christian ones in this country.

> >

> > Jim

>

> What about the religious nut case that is the president of Iran?

>

 

I guess you don't comprehend the word "ANY".

[Guest Al Klein]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:09:09 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <t2dii3lrumssluaspo3rqab0f9o133r27h@4ax.com>, Al Klein

><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> Yes - upholding the "liberal" Constitution. Face it, Jason, you live

>> in a nation that BY LAW is liberal and secular. Tying to make it

>> conservative or sectarian is ILLEGAL.

>The 10 commandments have been in American court houses hundreds of years.

 

People have been speeding since speed limits were invented. It's

still ILLEGAL to speed.

>Due to the actions of the ACLU and liberal judges, 10 commandment displays

>are now considered to be illegal.

 

No! Due to the actions of the ACLU and liberal judges, 10 commandment

displays have been pointed out to have ALWAYS been illegal.

> Believe it or not, liberal judges have

>an agenda. Their agendas are more important to them than the constitution.

 

Believe it or not, telling a whopper more than once doesn't make the

lie true, even though Christianity anticipated Hitler by 1,600 years.

 

The government CAN NOT make ANY law about religion, INCLUDING a law to

put a copy of the 10 commandments in a courthouse. That it does so

doesn't negate the Constitution, it just means that the government has

been violating the law for 228 years.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation

and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger

with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change

them."

- Abraham Lincoln

[Guest James Beck]

In article <fgc6v9$32j$02$3@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net

says...

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <MPG.21917052cf64970d98a28f@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James

> > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:

> >

> >> In article <Jason-3010071332070001@67-150-126-93.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> >> Jason@nospam.com says...

> >>> In article <MPG.21916532b69ef8aa98a28e@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James

> >>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> In article <Jason-3010071246080001@66-53-215-221.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

> >>>> Jason@nospam.com says...

> >>>>> In article <5ooq5lFnlvkbU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

> >>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> snip]

> >>>>>>> no--as you probably know--Christians don't follow all of the

> > laws in the

> >>>>>>> Old Testament.

> >>>>>> Thank goodness for that.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> BTW, if all the world was christian, what would be your plans for

> >>> stopping

> >>>>>> the different sects of christianity from making war upon each other?

> >>>>> There may be some wars but nothing like the wars that envolve the use of

> >>>>> nuclear weapons. Iran is presently making nuclear materials and

> > once they

> >>>>> start making several nuclear weapons per year--not a single large

> > city in

> >>>>> the world is safe to live in. It would be very easy to smuggle a nuclear

> >>>>> weapon into America and even easier to smuggle a nuclear weapon into

> >>>>> England or France.

> >>>>>

> >>>> Nukes, you means "GOD'S CLEANSING FIRE!!!!!" or some other name your

> >>>> grand poobah would call it when using it to wipe out the christians that

> >>>> fell out of grace because of a difference in how they worship?

> >>>>

> >>>> Dude, stop while you are ahead.

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>> Jim

> >>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to

> >>> be used for peaceful purposes--I have land (located under the ocean) that

> >>> I would like to sell you.

> >>>

> >> I don't think ANY religous fanatics should have access to nukes.

> >> Muslims, christians, jews, or otherwise.

> >> It worries me that a bunch of wackos that think there is a better place

> >> on the other side just waiting for them has that kind of power.

> >> "Your" people (christians) are just as war like as any other groups of

> >> zealots.

> >> You do know that the US fought Mexicans (christians), Germans

> >> (christians), each other (christians), Spain (christians), and the

> >> english (christians). That's just the what I could pull out of my head

> >> quickly about the USA. The list goes on and on, no jews, muslims,

> >> shintos, buddists, or the like required. Do you REALLY want to keep

> >> going there?

> >>

> >> Jim

> >

> > The major difference is that nuclear weapons were not used in any of those

> > wars. If Iran starts an assembly line for nuclear weapons, millions of

> > people in various cities will be killed. More people will die in one year

> > than died in all of those wars that you mentioned in your post. The only

> > option is to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran before (not after)

> > they start producing dozens of nuclear weapons per year. Read this report:

> >

> > Please answer this question: Do you want to allow a religious nut case to

> > have total control over dozens of nuclear tipped missiles?

>

> Ehm. Funny you should say this.....

 

I know, but it shows the depth of the christian delusion.

All other religious zealots are nut cases.......

I also can't believe that he left such a zinger just hanging there.

 

Jim

[Guest Al Klein]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:28:40 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris

<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>And NO judge could sensibly agree with him. If he would, he would not

>follow the law. And judges are not supposed to make new laws. Whatever

>political background they come from.

 

Unless (in Jason's little mind) the "new" law is what the people

(whose minds Jason can, of course, read) wanted all along.

 

Just let mainstream Protestantism start passing laws that are anathema

to evangelicalism and listen to the howls to go the other way. The

evangelical "Constitution" has "as long as MY ox isn't getting gored"

tacked on to just about everything.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation

and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger

with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change

them."

- Abraham Lincoln

[Guest Al Klein]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:24:56 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>

wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:03:53 -0400, in alt.atheism

>Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in

><svcii3t9malr8f08g06kuemtr8rh8741hr@4ax.com>:

>>AFTER WE attacked THEM.

>

>No, Iran had nothing to do with it. Wikipedia tells us (with footnote)

>

>"On March 14, 2007, a federal judge in the United States, Robert Doumar

>ruled that the Sudanese government was liable for the bombing.[3]"

>

>[3]^ NBC News. Federal judge rules Sudan responsible for USS Cole

>bombing in 2000. NBC News. Retrieved on March 14, 2007.

 

Which occurred after we attacked Iran (or Islam - either one works).

>That was news to me.

 

There was so much "bread and circuses" going on at the time, it was a

bit difficult to keep up.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation

and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger

with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change

them."

- Abraham Lincoln

[Guest Al Klein]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:19:36 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>I recall reading that C-4 was probably made in Iran.

 

It's also made in the US and dozens of other countries. There's

nothing in the article that says that THIS C-4 was made in Iran, so

Iran has nothing to do with the situation, other than in your use of

lies to create a reason for attacking them.

 

Are you really George Bush posting under the nym "Jason"? You're

using the same tactics to justify invading Iran that he used to

justify invading Iraq.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation

and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger

with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change

them."

- Abraham Lincoln

[Guest James Beck]

In article <fgc8o2$32j$02$9@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net

says...

> >> Ehm... Yes. Well... "time quanta per second". Problem there, as far as

> >> fiction goes. The "hardcore SciFis" will notice that. We'd probably need

> >> another frame to measure it by. (The REALLY hardcore ones probably will

> >> notice the question why speed of light is absolute, but relative to the

> >> medium it travels through.... hm....)

> > Yeah, there's always a catch.

> > Maybe something to do with quantum gravitational effects.

> > Stretched space and all.

> > Never really sat down to finish the thought.

>

> Maybe we should drink some beers and toss a few more ideas around?

Oh, my ideas get better in direct relation to the number of pints

consumed.

>

> >

> >> Not that it REALLY means a thing, it was just one of the

> >>> paths my mind was wandering down.

> >> Maybe you should try to write. If your mind can do that, it is just a

> >> small step to a story.

> > I've done some shorts.

>

> I should have known.... :-)

I always wanted to revive the Berserker series.

>

> >

> >> Now all we need to do is find the

> >>> master clock and run it in fast forward to see where we end up.

> >> That is the great thing in writing. You might never know where the story

> >> actually takes you, but you can do as you please.

> >>

> >>> (Or is that number just related to the clock rate of the computer

> >>> running this simulation

> >> Writing and and SciFi writers have always had some funky ideas. Some of

> >> them are actually and honestly true today. Take "Friday" (again,

> >> Heinlein) and the knowledge the protagonist gets out of the computer and

> >> the network. Internet, there it is.

> >> Copyright 1982.

> > I loved Friday.

> > Pretty brutal at times, but very believable.

>

> I KNEW it. No one that interested in this stuff gets around Heinlein...

Grew up on the stuff.

I read "Stranger in a strange land" when I was probably too young to

fully appreciate it. I just recently read it again.

I've pretty much read ALL of the classics and recently decided to quit

giving away my copies of "Sentenced to Prism" and "Armor" after I'm done

reading them, because I always end up buying them again.

Lately I have been buying up all of Alastair Reynolds' stuff.

>

> >

> >> Cyberspace, termed that way by William Gibson. End of the 80s (can't

> >> find my copy of that book right now). How far away are we from that?

> > Mona Lisa Overdrive and the rest of his books. Pretty good for the

> > times. I saw he had a new book out, but I thought he was getting a bit

> > too behind the times.

>

> Really? Must look and see if I can get it....

If memory serves, there was something from him on the SciFi new releases

shelf last time I went into town.

 

Jim

[Guest Mike]

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

> Al Klein wrote:

>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:12:42 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>> If Iran is allowed to develop hundreds of nuclear weapons

>>

>> They don't have the equipment to START developing ONE nuclear weapon.

>>

>>> Would you prefer to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran or allow

>>> millions of people in various countries to be killed?

>>

>> Would you prefer to live as a woman or a wombat?

>

> Hm, Good question. Maybe if I was a women, I'd understand them.... but

> would have no point anymore in understanding them....

>

> Wombat.. Hm. Also an interesting option.

 

I don't even think WOMEN understand women:)

[Guest Tokay Pino Gris]

Mike wrote:

> Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

>> Al Klein wrote:

>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:12:42 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>

>>>> If Iran is allowed to develop hundreds of nuclear weapons

>>>

>>> They don't have the equipment to START developing ONE nuclear weapon.

>>>

>>>> Would you prefer to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran or allow

>>>> millions of people in various countries to be killed?

>>>

>>> Would you prefer to live as a woman or a wombat?

>>

>> Hm, Good question. Maybe if I was a women, I'd understand them.... but

>> would have no point anymore in understanding them....

>>

>> Wombat.. Hm. Also an interesting option.

>

> I don't even think WOMEN understand women:)

 

sigh

 

very likely to be true...

 

 

Tokay

 

 

--

 

"Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that

wasn't immune to bullets"

 

The Brigader, "Dr. Who"

[Guest Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:18:58 -0800, Jason wrote:

> Let's say that you were president of America.

 

Impossible. Based on the examples of Reagan and Shrub, among others, I'd

need a brain transplant - from a turnip.

> The president of Iran

> clearly states: "Israel must be wiped off from the map of the world".

 

I suspect "he" - whomever occupies the position at any given time - has

been saying much the same thing for quite some time now. Measured in

centuries, if not millennia.

> You know that he already has missiles. You also know that he is in the

> process of making nuclear materials that can later be used to make

> nuclear warheads that are designed to be placed on his missiles.

 

Do I know that? Well, let's say I do.

> The head of the CIA shows you satellite photos of people in Iran

> mounting warheads on several missiles.

 

These would be the WMDs nobody can find, right?

> The head of the CIA advises you to destroy those missiles and the

> nuclear facilites in Iran.

 

He can advise all he likes. Has he shown that these are, in fact, nukes,

getting ready to launch, or is this another futile "Who took the WMDs

from the cookie jar" clusterfuck?

> Would you give the order to destroy the missiles and the nuclear

> facilities in Iran?

 

Not until I've got something a little more coherent than your ramblings to

base such an action on.

> My answer would be to destroy the missiles and nuclear facilities in

> Iran.

 

And kill umpteen people in the process, based on half-assed conjecture.

Yup, that's our Jason, any chance at all to kill. 8 million in New York,

some more in Iran, doesn't matter, just as long as somebody dies, the more

the better.

> Powell Says Iran Is Pursuing Bomb

 

This is hardly news.

> Evidence Cited of Effort to Adapt Missile

 

Nor this.

> SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 17 -- The United States has intelligence that Iran

> is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon

 

The same intelligence that told them of the WMD's, right? Well, we'll

ignore their complete lack of credibility for the moment.

> , further

> evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear

> bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday.

 

What, this is supposed to be news? Seems most folks - most politically

active nations, at least - either have nukes or are trying to get 'em.

Meanwhile, I wonder how, oh, Iceland and Denmark and Sweden are doing on

their mad rush to being major players in the nuclear proliferation game?

 

Hey, while we're wondering... you're bringing up Iran trying to get one or

two or a dozen nukes going, yet for some reason you are - again - ignoring

the fact that the only country in the world to have actually used nukes

is headed by a religious nut case of the worst order, and doesn't have one

or two or a dozen nukes, but thousands of them.

 

Why are you focusing on a country with one or two, but ignoring a country

with thousands? Which is the greater threat to world peace - hell, to

world _survival_?

> "I have seen some information that would suggest that they have been

> actively working on delivery systems. . . . You don't have a weapon

> until you put it in something that can deliver a weapon,"

 

Which could be a suitcase. Yes, and?

> summit. "I'm not talking about uranium or fissile material or the

> warhead; I'm talking about what one does with a warhead."

 

Stuff it in a plane and drop it. Yes, and?

 

Nukes may be _most_ useful when attached to something akin to a missile.

They remain useful, however, when delivered by foot courier to whatever

locale one wishes to send a message to.

> Iran has long been known to have a missile program, while denying that

> it was seeking a nuclear bomb.

 

Well, yes, missiles are, after all, useful wartime items regardless of

nuclear capability.

 

Jason, Jason, you're going to have to learn the difference between news

and fearmongering. Nothing in what you quoted was news. We know anyone

with a track record of hostilities - whether as aggressor or as victim -

will want to arm themselves. We know they're going to have, or develop,

missile capability. We know they're liable to at least try to arm

themselves with viable nukes. This is all old news.

 

The only actual news content in what you posted is that they are

(supposedly, it's not been confirmed) doing this, and you're getting all

worked up about it.

 

You know, if you put a seed in the ground, feed it, water it, care for it,

normal people expect it will sprout. They don't see it sprouting and

run about like chickens with their heads cut off, acting like there's some

big shock about the result.

 

Yet that's exactly what you're doing. The seeds were planted long ago, in

the warring actions of the relevant nations, in the march ahead of

technology, both in missiles and in nuclear weaponry. Why are you so

surprised that the notion of nuclear-capable missiles has sprouted?

 

Meanwhile you are still ignoring the largest nuclear stockpile in the

world, with a religious nut case of the worst order with his finger on the

faith-based trigger, and instead you're all worried about absolutely

predictable results on a scale a thousand times smaller.

 

You people never cease to amuse - and nauseate - me.

 

--

I’m a lot less judgemental than you. -- Martin Goldberg

I’ll be the judge of that. -- Marty Leipzig

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> In article <61eii3he08kkrhtt4c3m18r482hi18lbet@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:34 -0800, in alt.atheism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-3110071706350001@67-150-175-249.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>:

>>> In article <097ii35na1tem8b4ormhj2tsromi88daqp@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:55 -0800, in alt.atheism

>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>>> <Jason-3110071608550001@67-150-124-24.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>:

>>>>> In article <3p4ii3pu7vf0m7788kbvnjptfdbccnfmvh@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0400, in alt.atheism

>>>>>> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in

>>>>>> <29ahi3houucl8cvb6s8a4no2mlaji3tn1l@4ax.com>:

>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:08:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> How many times has Iran attacked America?

>>>>>>> None.

>>>>>> Niggling little criticism. Attacking an embassy or consulate does count

>>>>>> as attacking a country (see flap about US bombing of Chinese Embassy).

>>>>>> Of course Jason is still way off base.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Hint: Defending isn't attacking.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> How many times has the US made UNPROVOKED attacks on the Middle East.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Hint: Many, many times, both directly and through clients - during one

>>>>>>> such attack we were counter-attacked.

>>>>> I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships.

>>>> Which one? Before or after we shot one of their civiliam planes out of

>>>> the sky?

>>> I believe it was the USS Cole (spelling ??)

>> Please point to anywhere that claims that Iran attacked the USS Cole. As

>> far as I was aware, the concensus was that al Qaeda did it.

>

> http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/cole.investigation/index.html

 

<snip>

> Although C-4, which contains the explosive material RDX (Research

> Development Explosive), is primarily manufactured in the United States,

> forms of C-4 are made in Austria, Iran and other countries, according to

> knowledgeable sources.

>

> But the sources provided no other evidence to suggest involvement by any

> of those countries. Two sources familiar with the Cole investigation say

> the C-4 finding has placed Iran on the radar for investigators, but one

> source said that suspecting Iran would be merely the result of "an

> educated guess."

 

As usual, Jason can't read but simply asserts crap as fact that the

article doesn't say.

[Guest Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:09:09 -0800, Jason wrote:

>> Yes - upholding the "liberal" Constitution. Face it, Jason, you live

>> in a nation that BY LAW is liberal and secular. Tying to make it

>> conservative or sectarian is ILLEGAL.

> The 10 commandments have been in American court houses hundreds of

> years.

 

And it has been illegal that entire time.

 

People have been killing - committing murder - since the first time

someone picked up a rock or a stick; it's still illegal.

> Due to the actions of the ACLU and liberal judges, 10 commandment

> displays are now considered to be illegal.

 

No, they were always illegal. All the ACLU did was point out that such

things have been allowed to happen despite their being illegal.

> Believe it or not, liberal judges have an agenda. Their agendas are

> more important to them than the constitution.

 

Funny; you're whining about a case where the whole point is in upholding

the constitution. If you want to complain about people who put their

agendas ahead of the constitution, you'll have to use an example where the

actions involved aren't based on the constitution.

 

--

Christian Myth #1: Jesus was white.

[Guest Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:40:28 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

> Al Klein wrote:

>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:12:42 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>> If Iran is allowed to develop hundreds of nuclear weapons

>>

>> They don't have the equipment to START developing ONE nuclear weapon.

>>

>>> Would you prefer to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran or allow

>>> millions of people in various countries to be killed?

>>

>> Would you prefer to live as a woman or a wombat?

>

> Hm, Good question. Maybe if I was a women, I'd understand them.... but

> would have no point anymore in understanding them....

 

You could become a lesbian.

 

--

I have the false christian scum (and their infidel, reprobate

brethern), the Sodomites and the general filth of FidoNet all ganging

up on me. -- Steve Winter

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> I recall reading that C-4 was probably made in Iran. Read this report:

 

<snip>

> http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/01/cole.investigation/index.html

> Although C-4, which contains the explosive material RDX (Research

> Development Explosive), is primarily manufactured in the United States,

> forms of C-4 are made in Austria, Iran and other countries, according to

> knowledgeable sources.

>

> But the sources provided no other evidence to suggest involvement by any

> of those countries. Two sources familiar with the Cole investigation say

> the C-4 finding has placed Iran on the radar for investigators, but one

> source said that suspecting Iran would be merely the result of "an

> educated guess."

 

Oil, dates and pistachios are also all produced in Iran. Does that mean

that pistachio nut that I just ate was grown there? Of course not. OTHER

countries also export them. OTHER countries ALSO make C-4.

 

As usual, Jason can't read but simply asserts crap as fact that the

article doesn't say.

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> What about the religious nut case that is the president of Iran?

 

What about the religious nut case that is the president of the USA?

[Guest Mike]

Jason wrote:

> Powell Says Iran Is Pursuing Bomb

> Evidence Cited of Effort to Adapt Missile

 

Powell said Iraq had WMD's. Shows how little we can trust him.

[Guest Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:50:11 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>

>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>

>>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to

>>>> be used for peaceful purposes

>>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is.

>>

>> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons.

>>

>>

>

> weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298

> can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway.

>

> Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be

> collected.... rather tedious process....

 

295? 298? Do you mean 235 and 238, or do I need the five-minute

refresher course in isotopes and fissile materials?

[Guest Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:19:36 -0800, Jason wrote:

>> [3]^ NBC News. Federal judge rules Sudan responsible for USS Cole

>> bombing in 2000. NBC News. Retrieved on March 14, 2007.

> I recall reading that C-4 was probably made in Iran. Read this report:

 

And the plastic packaging it was shipped in was made in Canada. And the

boxes those were packaged in were made in China. And...

 

Who cares where the C4 was made? Means nothing. Get it from Iran, or

the US, or any of a dozen other places, you still have it.

[Guest Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:39:04 -0400, Al Klein wrote:

> We have NO trust in Bush. I'm surprised that so many so-called

> "Christians" refuse to admit that Bush is a VERY DANGEROUS religious

> nut.

 

Ah, but you forget; he's _their_ religion, which means he is, by

definition, both right and justified, as well as safe and sound and

perfectly rational.

 

Unlike believers in those other gods who are, by definition, unsafe,

unsound and dangerous, because they believe in silly, unfounded,

superstitious nonsense without a shred of justification, and those deities

they believe in and books they follow incite them to violence.

 

I trust every Christian reading the above will fail, absolutely, to get

the point and actually apply it.

[Guest Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:08:27 -0800, Jason wrote:

>> Have you seen pictures of US nuclear facilities? (I live within the

>> 10 mile evacuation zone of one.)

>>

>> What's the difference?

> The president of Iran stated "Israel must be wiped off from the map of

> the world."

 

And the US is the only nation to have actually used such weapons against

another. Ever.

 

And the US already has thousands of such weapons, ready to use, right now.

 

So yes, I agree, letting religion-befuddled people be in charge of

anything more dangerous than a plastic spoon is a very, very bad thing

indeed. Now explain to us why it's okay when _your_ boy does it, but not

okay when someone else does it.

 

--

Would you ever think about letting her watch us?

-- Debra Murphree, quoteing Jimmy Swaggart

asking about her nine year old daughter.

(Penthouse magazine, July 1988)

[Guest Tokay Pino Gris]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:40:28 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

>

>> Al Klein wrote:

>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:12:42 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>

>>>> If Iran is allowed to develop hundreds of nuclear weapons

>>> They don't have the equipment to START developing ONE nuclear weapon.

>>>

>>>> Would you prefer to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran or allow

>>>> millions of people in various countries to be killed?

>>> Would you prefer to live as a woman or a wombat?

>> Hm, Good question. Maybe if I was a women, I'd understand them.... but

>> would have no point anymore in understanding them....

>

> You could become a lesbian.

>

 

On the spot!

 

Tokay

 

--

 

"Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that

wasn't immune to bullets"

 

The Brigader, "Dr. Who"

[Guest Tokay Pino Gris]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:50:11 +0100, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <l79hi3tc5n5ncp4440nt82vhvijdm0pqgj@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:32:06 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> If you believe that the president of Iran is making nuclear materials to

>>>>> be used for peaceful purposes

>>>> The SCIENTISTS who have inspected the facilities KNOW he is.

>>> Nuclear materials can be used to make nuclear weapons.

>>>

>>>

>> weeeell. No, not that easy. Plutonium can. Uranium 295 can. Uranium 298

>> can't. Well, not fission bombs anyway.

>>

>> Plutonium has to be created. In a special reactor. Uranium 295 has to be

>> collected.... rather tedious process....

>

> 295? 298? Do you mean 235 and 238, or do I need the five-minute

> refresher course in isotopes and fissile materials?

 

Sorry. Came of night shift, so a little but woozy. You don't need that

course. It seems i do.

 

Tokay

 

 

 

--

 

"Just once, I wish we would encounter an alien menace that

wasn't immune to bullets"

 

The Brigader, "Dr. Who"

[Guest Al Klein]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:55:09 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason

<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>[snips]

>

>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:39:04 -0400, Al Klein wrote:

>

>> We have NO trust in Bush. I'm surprised that so many so-called

>> "Christians" refuse to admit that Bush is a VERY DANGEROUS religious

>> nut.

>

>Ah, but you forget; he's _their_ religion, which means he is, by

>definition, both right and justified, as well as safe and sound and

>perfectly rational.

>

>Unlike believers in those other gods who are, by definition, unsafe,

>unsound and dangerous, because they believe in silly, unfounded,

>superstitious nonsense without a shred of justification, and those deities

>they believe in and books they follow incite them to violence.

>

>I trust every Christian reading the above will fail, absolutely, to get

>the point and actually apply it.

 

I think there are still 3 intelligent Christians alive. Maybe 4.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation

and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger

with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change

them."

- Abraham Lincoln

[Guest Jason]

In article <UYSdnev3vONE67TanZ2dnUVZ_vfinZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo

Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>

> >>>I also seem to recall that they attacked one of our war ships.

> >>

> >>So has Israel.

> >

> >

> > That is true but I don't remember the details.

>

> So, I am confused. Are we supposed to attack Israel, too?

 

No--they have no desire to take over the world or ever attack America.

[Guest Jason]

In article <racki3hefh6rnkksrle87hel4c8gvbddnc@4ax.com>, Al Klein

<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:55:09 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason

> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> >[snips]

> >

> >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:39:04 -0400, Al Klein wrote:

> >

> >> We have NO trust in Bush. I'm surprised that so many so-called

> >> "Christians" refuse to admit that Bush is a VERY DANGEROUS religious

> >> nut.

> >

> >Ah, but you forget; he's _their_ religion, which means he is, by

> >definition, both right and justified, as well as safe and sound and

> >perfectly rational.

> >

> >Unlike believers in those other gods who are, by definition, unsafe,

> >unsound and dangerous, because they believe in silly, unfounded,

> >superstitious nonsense without a shred of justification, and those deities

> >they believe in and books they follow incite them to violence.

> >

> >I trust every Christian reading the above will fail, absolutely, to get

> >the point and actually apply it.

>

> I think there are still 3 intelligent Christians alive. Maybe 4.

 

I think there are still 3 or 4 intelligent atheists alive )