New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 16 Aug 2006 14:51 On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:02:22 GMT, Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:26:12 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > >> I don't think that's true, although most of us prefer to invest in >> property; its value holds up better in the long term, and Mercedes are >> boring and ugly to boot. > >And just how many Mercedeses have you booted? ;-) > I wouldn't stoop to boot a Mercedes. John
From: John Larkin on 16 Aug 2006 14:53 On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:20:10 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <63g6e2hsub8jhcp0mht8aqsqprupgheu8l(a)4ax.com>, dated Wed, 16 >Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> >writes > >>But asteroids killed off all the things like dogs. Sloman told me so. > >One of you has the timing wrong. When the asteroid did for the dinos, >the mammals were still Morganucodon types. They didn't get bigger until >after the dinos had gone and the climate had recovered. Right. In "a few million years." John
From: Don Bowey on 16 Aug 2006 18:51 On 8/15/06 10:57 AM, in article SP2yvlyCsg4EFwpz(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk, "John Woodgate" <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message <C1074AFA.3EF4D%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, dated Tue, 15 Aug 2006, > Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> writes >>> Jesus defined 'neighbour'. >> >> He must have been a Standards guy. > > Moses was the first. The first, as far as I know, was Hammurabi, but his rules did not have the force of God. Whoever wrote the Old Testament Standard plugged that hole. > Then some of the guys who wrote Leviticus, although > the goofy parts were written by lawyers, of course. We don't know that > Jesus ever wrote anything; certainly, it seems that nothing has survived > (odd, that, isn't it). All of the writing was probably done by the Working Group that convinced Christ that he was, in reality, the son of God, leading to his death. It's clear he thought he had a covenant with his father, for his survival. > But he did draft many standards, and they were > accepted with no dissent by enough people to perpetuate them. > > Insofar as they are a force for good, it doesn't matter whose son he > was. The Son of God dimension is the cause of all the trouble. My inclination is to agree, but I can't quite get there. It gets in the way of people understanding they are ALL children of God. Many of His children have excelled at helping make the earth a harmonious dwelling place, but organized religions based on the Old Testament are a serious problem. > > However, Mohammed's not being the Son of God, hasn't stopped the > followers of Islam causing much trouble in the name of their Prophet. In > particular, to each other, according to which of his relatives they > support. Their Standards need an update, too. > > Maybe the 'da Vinci Code' will trigger rival sects that support Mary > Magdalene, as Jesus' wife, and James, Jesus' brother! Maybe, but except for a good fiction plot, I don't see their significance. Perhaps we can work on updating the Code of Hammurabi to replace all the fictional historical accounts we call the bible. Don
From: Jim Yanik on 16 Aug 2006 19:43 John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in news:l3a6e2d8cdn1f2e4g0qqjgtnke1j58e0uf(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:43:54 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>The concept of free speech was never designed for the yahoo likes of >>you who find the free speech of others not to your liking. > > > Spoken like a genuine Liberal! Thank you for this classic line; I just > love this sort of reasoning. > > John > > One more datum showing that liberals are anti-free speech. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Jim Yanik on 16 Aug 2006 19:44
John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in news:c8a6e2tpgc4urq39ov5srv9n7chmj2h7da(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:40:32 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian ><null(a)example.net> wrote: > > >> >>That's odd - not too long ago, I had heard that the Hezbollah was >>democratically elected. >> >>But I guess democracy isn't approved when they elect somebody you don't >>like. That has been the plank of the US "liberals" ever since Bush got elected. "he's not MY President....." >> > > Well, I don't approve of "democracy" when a majority vote for > genocide. We need a slightly different word for "democracy that isn't > a majority of vicious murderers." > > John > -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |