Driver to drive?

I suspect that the universality of religion has a lot to do with the
line you snipped, about religion being using to get control of other
people.

About 5% of the population are psychopathic liars, who will tell any
story to manipulate other people - threatening your neighbours with
assault by invisible but omnipotent gods seems to be one of those lies
that works pretty well.

The Republicans weren't content to rely on religion to mobilise their
voters/suckers, but had to invoke non-existent weapons of mass
destruction as well.

-----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Andrew VK3BFA]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

I suspect that the universality of religion has a lot to do with the
line you snipped, about religion being using to get control of other
people.

About 5% of the population are psychopathic liars, who will tell any
story to manipulate other people - threatening your neighbours with
assault by invisible but omnipotent gods seems to be one of those
lies
that works pretty well.

The Republicans weren't content to rely on religion to mobilise their
voters/suckers, but had to invoke non-existent weapons of mass
destruction as well.

-----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Strange how everything comes down to politics - maybe thats the modern
substitute for religion, ie one irrational belief system for another -
take your pick. Personally, I dont give a stuff, if there is a God I
will face him when I die with a clear conscience as a fallible human
being - if God is the nasty judgemental fearful tyrant beloved of the
right/fundamentalists, then I would rather say "piss off - you dont
meet my standards, wheres the down elevator" And if there is no God,
well, I havent wasted any time trying to appease him out of guilt or
fear.

Lighten up people - every nutter is comvinced of their own
righteousness, and if we could just kill all the non believers in our
particular version of God, then all would be OK. At least, thats the
promise........

73 de VK3BFA Andrew.

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Jamie Morken wrote:

Hi all,

Would it be possible to substitute a 2d CCD array for the 3d parabola
mirror in a telescope if each CCD pixel only grabbed light with a phase
delay proportional to its "virtual" position on a parabolic mirror?


__ __
''-_ __-''
'-__ _--' virtual primary mirror
''-_ _--''
'''
--------------------------------- CCD array

In addition to what was said : 1 in^2 of aCCD is much
more expensive that 1 in^2 of a mirror.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

[Rhyanon]

I am LEAGUES above you, old shite. Croak and cry.

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:66bfv0hs5mko0lhcjrrhkf285kbsqkleeh@4ax.com...

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:57:46 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ulcav0h3bd6s2g58rdrg8eo7o8njndh70h@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:41:56 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:

Hee hee hee! You're BITTER!

---
You call deflating an old windbag being bitter? I call it having fun!
---

Too fucking cool! I forced you to spew bile all over yourself!

---
If it seems like bile to you, then that's because it tastes bitter to
_you_. To me it just seems like a statement of facts.
---

You're a bitter old looooozer who is AFRAID to die because
you have achieved NOTHING in this lifetime!

---
I've done plenty so far, more yet to come. How about you, windbag?
Ever done anything except flap your gums and bitch?


Nobody wants to hear about you and your "wife".

Heh! There's about as much chance of _you_ being my wife as there is
that anybody wants to fuck you.

--
John Fields

 

[Rhyanon]

Naw; I pop these lil gems off with hardly any effort. I credit fucktards
such as yerself for making it that much easier, providing so much fodder for
merriment -- mine, of course.



"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:c9cfv0hdd59tatiaak8n35sgeq0na29hob@4ax.com...

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:58:12 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:

It has you on a chain jerking like your mama on the DT's.

---
Whuddit take you, about an hour to come up with that gem?

--
John Fields

 

[Rhyanon]

What'd yer fat ho mama do, besides not wiping you off, I mean.

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:05dfv01ansd8ijkidflvsjfcf75rr17554@4ax.com...

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:58:51 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:




"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:kkdav0ti2m3hklc84uam9j33be5kkqeoh7@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:43:48 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:

Nice attempt at a dodge, except for that falling all over yourself
bit.

---
How could I help myself? It's not all that often some loud,
pretentious, bitch sets herself up for such a deserving kick in the
ass. It still makes me chuckle, Heh, Heh!


Why do you kick your mother?

---
Can't you read? Because you deserve it.

--
whoreson

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 27 Jan 2005 04:35:15 -0800, "Andrew VK3BFA"
<ablight@alphalink.com.au> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
I suspect that the universality of religion has a lot to do with the
line you snipped, about religion being using to get control of other
people.

About 5% of the population are psychopathic liars, who will tell any
story to manipulate other people - threatening your neighbours with
assault by invisible but omnipotent gods seems to be one of those
lies
that works pretty well.

The Republicans weren't content to rely on religion to mobilise their
voters/suckers, but had to invoke non-existent weapons of mass
destruction as well.

-----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[snip]

No, It was just fight now, or have to live like Sloman later ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Dave VanHorn]

Something I have done to quiet down noisy PCs:

Obtain a large square (as large as will fit) of MosFoam. Digikey sells it,
this is the stuff that you put chips in to protect them from ESD in storage.

Cut to fit, and place inside a large freezer bag, and glue the freezer bag
with mosfoam in place in the case. The bag prevents any "crumbs" from
getting into the other goodies, and keeps the square itself out of anything
else.

RF inside a metal box, is like light in a box made of mirrors, it's gonig to
bounce around till it dissipates, or finds a way out. The mosfoam is a nice
material for it to dissipate in.

 

Jamie Morken wrote:

Hi all,

Would it be possible to substitute a 2d CCD array for the 3d parabola

mirror in a telescope if each CCD pixel only grabbed light with a
phase
delay proportional to its "virtual" position on a parabolic mirror?


__ __
''-_ __-''
'-__ _--' virtual primary mirror
''-_ _--''
'''
--------------------------------- CCD array

(created by AACircuit v1.28.4 beta 13/12/04 www.tech-chat.de)

So if a pixel in the CCD array was 1meter away vertically from the
virtual mirror, you would delay sampling the pixel about 3
nanoseconds
(approximate time it takes light to travel 1meter) compared to the
pixel
at the root of the parabola, and you would sample the pixels at a
rate
proportional to the frequency of the light you are receiving. I
think
the light would also have to be polarized so that it is only
travelling
vertically to the CCD. Also the CCD array would have to be custom in

that each pixel would have to be able to be triggered seperately and
very quickly.

I have always wanted to be able to build a telescope using just a
planar
sheet of material and avoid having to have a precision mirror so this
is
just a wild idea about that!

This isn't going to work for even more reasons than have been listed
already.

The two that I'd like to throw in are first, that you can't gate your
CCD on and off in the 3 nanosecond required to get the 1 metre distance
discrimination in your example, where telescope mirrors are figure to
submicron accuracies corresponding to attosecond discrimination, and
second, that if you could, your window would only be open for
attoseconds, and with current technology you'd be hard pressed to get a
mark to space ratio of one in a million, so you'd be rejecting all but
one in a million of all the photons hitting your detector.

This is that sort of idea that gives brain-storming sessions a bad
name.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:29:43 -0700, learner@juno.com wrote:

In <b5egv0le825ipu9iep0sio7cs3cu5tmdml@4ax.com>, on 01/26/05
at 06:46 PM, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> said:

I have seen no evidence to support evolution, but I listen to those
that have studied it and believe it a likely possibility. I have seen
evidence of God that, apparently, not everyone has seen. Why is what I
have seen and studied less valid than the other?

---
It isn't, but some who haven't seen God detest those who have because
they consider themselves important enough to have seen God, yet that
"right" hasn't been afforded them.


John,

That's just stupid. I think you are just jealous because some people are
willing to let their minds go to a higher plane and learn things that you
are incapable of understanding.

"they saw god, but I didn't, therefore, that makes them uppity snobs"

You can do better than that.

---
I did.

My meaning was, "What you have seen and studied _isn't_ less valid
than what others have, but some of them will hate you because they
consider themselves more worthy than you to see God, yet they
haven't."

Remember these lyrics from the Animals?:

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh, Lord, pleae don't let me be misunderstood."


--
John Fields

 

[Guy Macon]

Gareth wrote:

1m square array would therefore need >400,0000,000,000 pixels,
each sampling at thousands of THz.

Gareth, marketing just called; they need that CCD array by
Friday, at a retail cost of less than $10 per array...

 

In <wY1Kd.244467$Z7.185322@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, on 01/27/05
at 08:51 AM, "Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> said:

It is *not* evidence that would be accepted in court. It is *all*
hearsay. There are *no* accounts of Jesus written until many years after
his death. There are no 1st hand accounts that such a man even existed.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

So, no there is no allowable evidence.

Okay. Like I said, if you set the rules, no one can play.

However, there are many first hand accounts of people who saw Jesus after
he was crucified, and there are records of Him being seen by other
civilizations. Just because they did not have video recorders doesn't mean
it didn't happen.

You have lost this one, just like you have lost all the others.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Google, "the excuse for the people who cannot make up their own mind"

It is so lame the way you keep thinking you can defend your position by
pointing to a dopey web site. Try to understand that there are plenty of
sites that contradict your little places, so don't even bother posting
such idiotic links. No one cares. >>

That is, based on extensive evidence for evolution and
*zero* actual evidence for an actual god.

There is NO evidence for evolution. Show me a video, or a photograph of
someone evolving from a monkey.......

This position has got to go.

The point is that QM strongly suggests that a god cannot be all
knowing. That is, a god that can predict everything, essentially
means QM is wrong. Considering the success of QM, this one is a tad
hard to swallow.

I disagree with this logic.



Oh dear... your way out of your depth.

Who cares what Einstein says?Hint. Einstein tried this

approach for 30 years in his later life, i.e. hidden determinacy. It is
generally accepted today by physicists that he was up the garden path.

Kevin, you are such an asshole, its not worth the time it takes to read
your trash. Who gives a rats ass about what Einstein said? Only people
like you who can't think for yourself.

Yep. It sums up and demolishes your naive argument.

Hardly.......

One day, you will learn that I a right, and it will piss you off for
eternity.

There are no eye witness accounts.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Do you really think the morons who set up that page have a clue, anymore
than you do? They are wrong, and know not of what they speak

Until you fight your own battles, and not lean on the ravings of others,
there can be no more discussion.

Like I said, game over

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:58:19 -0800, Noah Roberts
<nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Why is what I
have seen and studied less valid than the other?


---
It isn't, but some who haven't seen God detest those who have because
they consider themselves important enough to have seen God, yet that
"right" hasn't been afforded them.


I have to firmly disagree there. I think that right has been afforded
everyone.

---
Good point, thanks. Probably "right" is the wrong word, since it's
more like a fountain that's always running, and whether you drink from
it or not is your choice.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:22:50 -0700, uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

In <9oYJd.131944$f47.23183@news.easynews.com>, on 01/27/05
at 02:31 AM, Parse Tree <account@domain.extension> said:
Unfortunately it doesn't work. With the universe there came time,
according to current scientific understanding (I think this is
logically proven?). So if we step outside of time there can be no
universe.

That doesn't even make sense. Time is an entity created by the universe,
not the other way around.

The universe doesn't know jack about time. Time is something that man
invented so he would know when to eat and get up in the morning.

---
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:26:07 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
<Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote:

There is factual evidence that shows how the big bang theory is improbable.

---
Yes.

Attached is a discussion, arranged chronologically, originally held
on vortexl@eskimo.com about a work in progress, my hypothesis that
our universe is like a bubble in a block of swiss cheese.

--
John Fields

 

[Kevin Aylward]

uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

In <TQ1Kd.244458$Z7.23588@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, on 01/27/05
at 08:43 AM, "Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> said:

Wait a minute.... Its way cool to dispute, and argue, and no one
here is going to change their minds based on any of this inane logic
that is going back and forth, but I am rather weary of the comment
that "there is no evidence of God" when that is simply a false
statement.

I am implying *credible* evidence, and certainly *only* that evidence
that would be allowed in a court of crimnial law. That is, hearsay is
dismissed unilterally as "no evidence".


Boy, have you never been in court? Game over dude.

Yep. Obviously you haven't.

Once you set yourself up as the judge and jury of what is credble,
you end the conversation.

There's nothing wrong in being judge and jury. Many court cases are only
handled by a judge. Indeed the judge has to make an assessment of what
is allocable evidence.

You are mistaking judge/jury with prosecutor and defender. Both judges
and juries decide guilt or innocence in courts.

Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court. Period.

You don't much like to discuss, you pretty much just like to twist
facts, and create your own version of truth.

And what facts have I twisted? Oh you mean the facts that you just dont
happen to agree with.

You seem to miss my fundamental approach to life. It is absolutely the
truth that I am after. Whether or not I like the truth is irrelevant.
When I say I would love for there to be a life after death, I mean it.
Trust me on that one. A god would be great from that respect.
Unfortunately, logic tells me that there is no chance whatsoever.

This *is* the truth http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

I wish it were not so.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

In <wY1Kd.244467$Z7.185322@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, on 01/27/05
at 08:51 AM, "Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> said:

It is *not* evidence that would be accepted in court. It is *all*
hearsay. There are *no* accounts of Jesus written until many years
after his death. There are no 1st hand accounts that such a man even
existed.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

So, no there is no allowable evidence.

Okay. Like I said, if you set the rules, no one can play.

However, there are many first hand accounts of people who saw Jesus
after he was crucified,

Show me a *contemporary* *written* record to these alleged sightings.

Hint: there aint any.

and there are records of Him being seen by
other civilizations.

Show me a *contemporary* *written* record to these alleged sightings.

Hint: there aint any.

Just because they did not have video recorders
doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You have lost this one, just like you have lost all the others.

Right on dude. Your pathetic. Present some evidence that contemporary
records exist.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm


Google, "the excuse for the people who cannot make up their own mind"

Yeah, repeating phrases is "the excuse for the people who cannot make up
their own mind". Take the hint.

It is so lame the way you keep thinking you can defend your position
by pointing to a dopey web site.

Here we go again. The site stands on its own. If you disagree with what
it presents, present your evidence.

Try to understand that there are
plenty of sites that contradict your little places, so don't even
bother posting such idiotic links.

Nonsense. Theologians agree that there are no contemporary written
records of Jesus. If you actual read the site you would see the evidence
for this.

"Many people-- then and now-- have assumed that these letters [of Paul]
are genuine, and five of them were in fact incorporated into the New
Testament as "letters of Paul." Even today, scholars dispute which are
authentic and which are not. Most scholars, however, agree that Paul
actually wrote only eight of the thirteen "Pauline" letters now included
in the New Testament. collection: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Virtually all
scholars agree that Paul himself did not write 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus--
letters written in a style different from Paul's and reflecting
situations and viewpoints in a style different from those in Paul's own
letters. About the authorship of Ephesias, Colossians, and 2
Thessalonians, debate continues; but the majority of scholars include
these, too, among the "deutero-Pauline"-- literally, secondarily
Pauline-- letters."

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (Adam,
Eve, and the Serpent)

"We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we
call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The
Gnostic Gospels)

"The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words
of Jesus in any Gospel."

-Bishop John Shelby Spong

need I go on?

No one cares.

Sure, you don't care about having your beliefs proved wrong.

That is, based on extensive evidence for evolution and
*zero* actual evidence for an actual god.

There is NO evidence for evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

This position has got to go.

The point is that QM strongly suggests that a god cannot be all
knowing. That is, a god that can predict everything, essentially
means QM is wrong. Considering the success of QM, this one is a tad
hard to swallow.

I disagree with this logic.



Oh dear... your way out of your depth.

Who cares what Einstein says?Hint. Einstein tried this
approach for 30 years in his later life, i.e. hidden determinacy. It
is generally accepted today by physicists that he was up the garden
path.

Kevin, you are such an asshole, its not worth the time it takes to
read your trash. Who gives a rats ass about what Einstein said? Only
people like you who can't think for yourself.

The point is that way, way, better men then your have tried your
arguments and failed.

It is you who show a complete inability to think for yourself. All you
do is regurgitate what your mama fed you.

Yep. It sums up and demolishes your naive argument.

Hardly.......

One day, you will learn that I a right, and it will piss you off for
eternity.

ROTFLMAO

There are no eye witness accounts.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm


Do you really think the morons who set up that page have a clue,
anymore than you do? They are wrong, and know not of what they speak

So said the blind

You want more quotes from http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

"For Mark's gospel to work, for instance, you must believe that Isaiah
40:3 (quoted, in a slightly distorted form, in Mark 1:2-3) correctly
predicted that a stranger named John would come out of the desert to
prepare the way for Jesus. It will then come as something of a surprise
to learn in the first chapter of Luke that John is a near relative, well
known to Jesus' family."

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review,
June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)



"The narrative conventions and world outlook of the gospel prohibit our
using it as a historical record of that year."

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review,
June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 54)



"Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and
almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe
otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real
live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it."

-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)



"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not
biographies."

-Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston
University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)



"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"

-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard
Divinity School



"We are led to conclude that, in Paul's past, there was no historical
Jesus. Rather, the activities of the Son about which God's gospel in
scripture told, as interpreted by Paul, had taken place in the spiritual
realm and were accessible only through revelation."

-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.83



"Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he
was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth."

-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141



"Even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ,
he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there
isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just
modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ
of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern
scholarship is no less a fiction."

-Robert M. Price, "Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert
Price and Rev. John Rankin," Opening Statement



"It is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is
itself apparently mythic from first to last.""

-Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for
Inquiry Institute (Deconstructing Jesus, p. 260)

Until you fight your own battles, and not lean on the ravings of
others, there can be no more discussion.

Like I said, game over

Ha...Ha...Ha...

You show you self as a fool mate. You can deny what you like, but it
don't make the evidence of what theologians and historians all agree on.
Why don't you go and check the references cited. You are just too
ignorant of the facts already accepted by your own religion.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:51:40 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

You have to stop saying there is no evidence, and start saying that
you just don't believe the evidence.

Nope. Evidence is hard evidence. Physical records such as video,
voltmeter readings, parting of the Atlantic ocean sort of stuff.

If someone claims to see a god it is meaningless unless such a god
provides evidence, say a miracle, that he is indeed what is claimed.
Present this evidence.

---
The miracles Jesus performed are well-documented, yet I'm sure you'll
find fault with the way they were reported and recorded in order to
maintain your stallion stance, Conquistador.

--
John Fields

 

Rich Grise wrote:

Because science is fallible, and admits it - whereas religions are
fallible, and do not admit it.

Wait a minute. You just admitted it - religions are fallible.
Religions

(lots of miscellaneous god-bollocks snipped).

You missed the point, of course. I am not religious. I *stated* that
religions are fallible (this is not an "admission" of anything).
Religions do not admit fallibility. The Catholic Pope is a perfect
example of this: reality is defined by what he says, not the other way
around.

 

Jim Thompson wrote:

On 27 Jan 2005 04:35:15 -0800, "Andrew VK3BFA"
ablight@alphalink.com.au> wrote:


bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
I suspect that the universality of religion has a lot to do with
the
line you snipped, about religion being using to get control of
other
people.

About 5% of the population are psychopathic liars, who will tell
any
story to manipulate other people - threatening your neighbours
with
assault by invisible but omnipotent gods seems to be one of those
lies that works pretty well.

The Republicans weren't content to rely on religion to mobilise
their
voters/suckers, but had to invoke non-existent weapons of mass
destruction as well.

-----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[snip]

No, It was just fight now, or have to live like Sloman later ;-)

In addition to the 5% of psychopathic liars, the population contains an
uncertain proportion of the complacently gullible - my guess is that
they must form close to 50% of the population - of which Jim is a
depressing example.

In reality, he would probably enjoy living as well as I do. Granting
his silly prejudice against French wines, he probably wouldn't like
having a wine cellar where the boxes are labelled with words like
Margaux, Monthelie and Chassagne-Montrachet, though he might be
susceptible to the charms of the Grosset Polish Hill Riesling which
comes from politically reliable Australia. He'd probably like the wines
though, if he tasted them blind - granting the rather pedestrian
quality of the Australian wines he has boasted about, he probably
wouldn't appreciate them as much as someone with a more sophisticated
palate ....

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen