Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 18 Oct 2006 01:09 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:57:56 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:07:18 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan ><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>>>They are prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and >>>> that's reasonably well enforced. I didn't write that, you did. >>>Not in churches, they're not. I didn't write that. >Churches may not donate money or substantial resources to political >candidates. Would you have a prohibition against members of a >congregation discussing politics? How about members of the Sierra >Club? The NRA? The ACLU? MADD? > >There have been some recent legal actions against churches that have >broken the no-politics rules, and against some secular nonprofits, >too. That's you, of course. Responding to someone you didn't cite above. >> As a musician in a group that happens to play >>>for church services a lot, I've been to services of quite a few >>>denominations...and many of them preach politics from the pulpit, to the >>>extent of telling their congregation for whom they should vote. That is a >>>big problem, in my book. I didn't write that. >Of course it is; you don't want their candidates to win. John, you are so fast with all that snip and cut and slam, bam, thank you mam reading of yours that it would be hard for anyone reading your post to realize you were responding to someone other than me. Show a little more care in your writing, if you'd please. If not, of course, we'll manage. But it would be nicer if you would show some care about those you are writing to. Jon
From: lucasea on 18 Oct 2006 01:13 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:r84bj29ks79pg0usm3m1gckgv430imkd0d(a)4ax.com... > > It's surprising to me, in this newsgroup, how hard it is to get people > to brainstorm, to riff on ideas. Rigidity rules. I agree. I think the problem (at least on sci.chem) is that people will present a new idea as a fact, rather than as a speculation. A post that says "here's how I say it is" garners a very different response than one that says "hey, guys, I had this new idea, and I'd like your thought on how to refine it". People need to find better ways to get a brainstorm like that going. I've also found, through years of using it as a tool in my science, that to do brainstorming well and productively takes a phenomenal amount of discipline, and people do have to agree to abide by rules (for example, the main rule is "you can only present new ideas, not criticize/critique what someone else has presented".) Refinement of the ideas generated in a brainstorm also takes discipline, but not quite as much. That sort of discipline just ain't possible in a free-form forum like Usenet, particularly in unmoderated newsgroups.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 18 Oct 2006 01:37 On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:13:06 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: ><snip> >I think the problem (at least on sci.chem) is that people will >present a new idea as a fact, rather than as a speculation. ><snip> I agree well with this particular comment. But I'd add that I am sensitive to people who seem to believe that everyone else should hang on every word of their own imaginations and run with it. I happen to consider it lazy conceit and worse to not be bothered to put one's own time into one's own ideas to at least do a 1st order check. "Do your own legwork and show me," is a good motto here. Otherwise, expect to be ignored unless conceit prevents it. On the other hand, I deeply respect imagination that is demonstrated as coupled to a broad understanding of evidence. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 18 Oct 2006 01:40 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:52:59 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:55:17 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan ><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>>>John, I've never seen a list for liberals to vote towards. Not ever. >>>Now you have: >>> >>>http://www.emilyslist.org/ >>> >>>There are lots more... just look. >> >>Please show me the list there. > >Good grief, do I have to do all your web work for you? > >https://secure1.emilyslist.org/Donation/index.cfm?event=initiative_showOne&initiativeID=12&mt=146 No, you just have to do YOUR OWN WORK. It was your point, after all. I am beginning to put two and two together over this discussion to gradually wonder that you may be the kind of boss who overly depends upon people smarter than you to make good on your hand waving ideas. I'm sure it isn't the case, but sometimes it seems that way. Jon
From: Michael A. Terrell on 18 Oct 2006 02:09
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:45355C57.28A8837D(a)earthlink.net... > > > > The one where someone is > > reported to have fired at the National Guard > > Now *there's* a nice little bit of revisionist history. Revisionist? It was report on local TV that way the day it happened. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |