Driver to drive?

[Noah Roberts]

Parse Tree wrote:
[snip]

I want no such thing. I think that theists need to be persecuted because
they have wrong and often immoral beliefs.

Then you are morally and ethically dead. Not because you don't believe
in God, but because you would persecute people for their beliefs. You
are beneith contempt. You are no better than a terrorist, dictator, or
the evil slime that tortured and murdured people for their beliefs
during the inquisition.

You have now proven yourself beyond reason, beyond humanity, beyond
humility, and beyond even a shred of credibility. You ARE the religous
right who would also force their beliefs unto the rest of humanity. No
decency, no humility, no values,... nothing of worth. You are not only
irrational but you are without life.

I have now lost all respect for you and your opinions. I give you the
same respect I would Hitler or Bush. You are free to your opinion, but
I cannot come close to respecting it and as soon as you act upon it I
will be the thorn in your side until you destroy me or I you.

I can never abide such filth, or complete disregard for the right of any
being to have its own beliefs.

I will fight you and yours to the end of my days...

And that is all I have to say to you...and that is all I can stand to
hear...

[snip]

 

[Noah Roberts]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

http://www.godchannel.com/who.html

Certainly one way to see it.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Ben Bradley]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:07:32 -0500, Mark Jones <abuse@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

Hmm, I guess nobody would come to a church where things were told
like they really are. Rev. Phil (as in Dr. Phil) Revelation Church -
Ha! Without the negatives of religion "forcing" parishoners to come,
they'd probably avoid it altogether. What do you think? Would you take
your family to a church once or twice a week which taught peace, love,
and understanding without the mental anguish of sins, holy ghosts, and
funky rituals? Is the idea absurd?

This may be "too liberal" for many, but look at uua.org.

And just to try to make it ever so slightly on topic, it seems
there are a higher proportion of engineers in UU congregations than in
the general population.

Or if you really want to go "church shopping," just go through this
list that contains just aboue everything:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/profiles/listalpha.htm

-MCJ

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

 

[Parse Tree]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Parse Tree wrote:

None of these comments could in any way alter the fact that God is
logically impossible, and therefore logically proven to not exist.

Heh...again you assume your definition of God is correct,

No, that definition was assumed for the sake of the argument. This whole
thing began with a statement that there cannot be an omnipotent god. You
said 'How so?', and now it's been explained.

Are you accepting that there can't be an omnipotent god, now?

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:32:57 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Philosophizer
rtp@example.net> wrote (in <pan.2005.01.25.21.02.34.170237@example.net> )
about 'Have you heard the GOOD NEWS?', on Tue, 25 Jan 2005:

"It can't ever be known, we're done, anything that doesn't fit inside our
box doesn't exist.

While many scientists in the past have made that mistake, it is a mistake
and **not science**. You might as well reject math because some people get
wrong answers.

I was actually referring to the attitude of several people here. I'm sure
you know who they are. ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:37:43 +0100, Frank Bemelman wrote:

Sort of arrogancy of being right in the first place Well, religion in
its best form it 'helps' a lot of people; nothing to get excited about.
Except for that shitrag of Bush of course, who thinks he is the new
Jezus Christ himself. I'd say, nail the bastard. Email for sketches of
the woodwork needed. I can supply the wood too, if need be. All else
that it takes are a few sensible americans to hammer the nails.

Are a fucking idiot? You want to turn the asshole into a Martyr? We'll
all be rounded up and forced to become converts to the Church of George.

Just unelect him, or impeach him.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:37:41 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com>
wrote:

WAHAHAHA!! Two replies? For a _correction_ nonetheless? Priceless! You are a
true weeny!

---
Just can't stop yourself, can you?

--
John Fields

 

[Randy McLaughlin]

<joerevskelton@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:t6AHd.45962$Zv5.44305@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

"Mark Jones" <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:aIKdnS2bZ4OxA3PcRVn-tw@buckeye-express.com...
Is Lady Chatterly really a bot?

Lady Chatterly is the cyber-Goddess of UseNet.

Bow Down You Swine!

Stop cross posting.

 

[Randy McLaughlin]

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.20.02.44.53.671827@att.bizzzz...

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:25:51 -0600, Rhyanon wrote:

Backpedal away, dipshit -- you lose and you know it. HAH.

Lose to a top-poseur? Not possible.

You know that you're really a bottom. Why fight it?

--
Keith

Please stop cross posting.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41ef7ec2$0$14612$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

Unfortunately, AIUI, there are no really cheap solutions to providing a
USB host, you pretty much need a fairly powerfull micro in order to talk
to the USB controller chip.

They're getting much cheaper. Cypress has a USB host microcontroller
that -- while full of silicon bugs :-( -- seems to get a lot of use and is
in the 'some low dollars per' range pricewise. The microcontroller isn't
nearly powerful enough to be a general purpose host, but appears to be
usable when a very specific type of device is the only kind that will be
connected, e.g., memory cards, USB serial class devices, etc.

At Wal*Mart you can get a cigarette lighter dongle that has a little FM
transmitter in it and a USB connector. You stick a regular old USB memory
card into the thing and it plays back your MP3 files over FM... all for
$24.95. I didn't get one, but I'm curious just how 'compatible' it is with
various memory cards, since for that price they must be using an approach
with not much more power than Cypress', and I'm told that some USB memory
cards (such as some from Sony) contain embedded hubs, which I'd guess would
be too complex for such a unit to use (i.e., it's not smart enough to be
able to enumerate through the hub).

---Joel Kolstad

 

[Ian Stirling]

Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41ef7ec2$0$14612$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
Unfortunately, AIUI, there are no really cheap solutions to providing a
USB host, you pretty much need a fairly powerfull micro in order to talk
to the USB controller chip.

They're getting much cheaper. Cypress has a USB host microcontroller
that -- while full of silicon bugs :-( -- seems to get a lot of use and is
in the 'some low dollars per' range pricewise. The microcontroller isn't
nearly powerful enough to be a general purpose host, but appears to be
usable when a very specific type of device is the only kind that will be
connected, e.g., memory cards, USB serial class devices, etc.
snip

http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS5169576412.html

Seems I may be wrong, I last looked a fair few months ago.
I don't know how much above device is (awaiting quote).

Linux + host controller seems a usefull match, as you don't have to
write code for several dozen devices, they just (more or less) work.
Then again, there is the fact that linux may be a poor match for some
things you'd like to do.

 

[Paul Burke]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

"Thous shalt not kill" becomes "You should avoid killing other people,
beause it upsets their relatives and your neighbours - clinical trials
have shown that people who commit a single murder have a 43% chance of
being killed by a vengeful relative, a 15% chance of being
pre-emptively lynched by the neighbours and an 85% chance of becoming
unemployable because they make their co-workers anxious."

Could you now give us the updated version of "Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's ass"?

Paul Burke

 

[Paul Burke]

Kyle Winters wrote:

I have a 74LS05 IC (Hex Open Collector Inverter) that I want to use to drive
a motor (via a relay).

I haven't got any TTL data books any more, so I don't know the figures,
but I suspect that a 7405 won't sink enough current to drive a relay.
Guessing at about 5mA sink current, if the resistance of your coil is
less than (order of) 1kohm, you're sunk.

Replace it with a ULN2003 or similar (different pinout!).

Paul

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ik60v05pjc0hs834ar5hf33ra4pnctfgro@4ax.com...

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:43:08 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:1bjvu0pc3k9s8105f8k8tmd9sih0vpqsj7@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:57:55 GMT, Parse Tree
account@domain.extension> wrote:

Aunty Kreist wrote:

But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?

It doesn't. It's a parasite until it leaves the host.

---
Then you're arguing that it becomes human when it leaves the host, no?

Unfortunately in some cases, leaving the host doesn't guarantee that
the parasitic behavior will end.

No kidding, look at you.

---
IKYABWAI? How juvenile.
---

Ok, Peewee.

Are you gonna preach about how God is the creator of the Universe again?

---
Nah, sounds like you got it the first time around.

BTW, have you got a clue about the origin of the universe?

Have you, or are you gonna go on another religious zealot-like rant?

--
John Fields

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:gs00v0le20mu1m6t9bu84engaijmtct3oo@4ax.com...

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:05:03 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:9tfvu09nv4larivb7lcffvttsfbvem6bqm@4ax.com...

---
And how very presumptuous of you to inform me that that's not what I
should be doing?
---

And what gives a religious zealot like yourself the right to speak for
anyone else? Your opinion is your own, not everyone else's as well.

---
You're _way_ off the mark on the zealot thing, and I don't see where
you got the part about me speaking for someone else, but you're right
about my opinion, and what I did earlier was state it. And I'll
continue to, thank you very much, and If I see something I don't like
I'll damn sure be critical about it, same as you're doing right now.
---

And that is fine However; it is *not* fine when you _tell_ people what they
believe, like you recently did to our Pip.

---
Unfortunately, sometimes they are. Like Peterson. And, perhaps, you?
---

Perhaps Peterson's momma should have aborted him, no?

---
That was her choice to make, and she chose not to. Perhaps if she'd
taken a little better care of him, though, things might have been
different. And perhaps not. The reality is "shit happens".
---

You are seriously not insinuating that Peterson became a killer because his
Mommy didn't take good care of him, are you?

Oh dear.

And still being so considerate, telling people what should and
shouldn't
disturb them.

---
Didn't your mommy ever tell you that there's no boogey man?
---

What?

---
She didn't?
---

Are you OK? Seriously?

---
Laugh away, if you choose.

I am.

It's all just my opinion, and if you want
to kill your kids, then go for it!
---

Niiice. Nothing like a little fundamentalism in the morning. Did you read
your buy-bull today?

---
Nope, and I don't buy-bullshit either, so get your facts straight
before you start assuming you know what you're talking about.
---

My facts are straight, Johnny-dear. The fact is that I will believe what I
want, when I want, and there's nothing you nor your anti-choice agenda can
do about it. Whether it be _informing_ me what you feel my opinion should
be, whether it's another bizarre Xian rant by you, whatever. No matter what
tactic you badly try to employ, the fact remains that you simply cannot
control the beliefs, thoughts, and actions of others.

Its just one step to declaring abortion murder.

---
Abortion _is_ murder.

That is opinion, not fact.

---
It doesn't matter how thin you slice it, when you're done the fact
still remains that had that embryo not been killed it might have made
it to term.
---

Key word....MIGHT. An embryo is a parasitic blob of tissue and cells. It
does not think. It does not feel. It is not aware. It is the equivalent
of a
tapeworm. At that stage, I can hardly afford it the same rights as a
human
being....because it isn't one.

---
It's alive and it's the precursor to a human being, but if you want to
dehumanize it and treat it like a tapeworm, then do it. That's one of
the differences between us it seems; I happen to believe that life is
precious and to snuff it out for convenience is wrong, while you seem
to think that it's just a fine and dandy thing to do.
---

Yes, I do. You have a problem with that?

It's the taking of a life which, had it not
been intentionally interfered with, would have died of other causes.
---

Proof? I expect you to give cites.

---
Reducto ad absurdium, look around you. See all the people that
_weren't_ murdered before they were born?
---

Your reasoning is stupid.

---
No, your capability for perception is flawed.
---

No, your reasoning is stupid.

You can't give any eveidence why you feel that your opinion should be
forced on everyone else.

---
LOL! Evidence about _feelings_?

In fact, I _don't_ believe that _anyone's_ opinion should be forced on
anyone else, including your opinion that I should stop expressing my
opinions in the way I choose to.
---

Think for yourself, but don't ever think that you can decide the opinions
of others.

---
Oh, gawd!!! Platitudes, now?
---



To me, this is the issue that deserves national attention.

---
No, it deserves individual attention. Unfortunately, many of the
sexual encounters which result in progeny are entered into with
ignorance of the consequences of those encounters, with the result
that the offspring of those unions will be unwanted, will be uncared
for, and will become dregs upon society, with the intelligent ones
planning and successfully executing payback for their misery.
---

Wow, someone sure has sour grapes.

---
The connotation of "sour grapes" is generally that of grudging envy or
jealousy, but you seem to be driving at something else. Care to
expound on what you mean?
---

You seem to be bitter by insinuating that your creators were not very
good
parents.

---
I was disagreeing with the poster, and to make my point I presented a
set of circumstances designed to show that responsibility lies with
the individual and should be taken care of at that level, not at a
national one.

Well...there's one thing we agree on. If a person decides that they no
longer want to carry a parasite, it's an INDIVIDUAL decision, and no one
elses.

Interesting, though, that you should read what you did into it.
Perhaps a little trouble at home when _you_ were younger? Or,
perhaps, now?
---

Oh, the rhetorical armchair psychologist. How witty. If only every other
troll on usenet hadn't already tried this overused tactic.

Oh, no Johnny boi. I intend to point out your bullshit as I see fit.

---
Point away, small fry!
---

Look in the mirror; you'll see it on yer head, Big Mac!

---
LOL! Look at what _you've_ written so far; a bunch of emotionally
generated half-baked accusations backed up with a little vitriol.

Seems what "I've written so far" has gotten you in such an angry tizzy
that
you are now spamming this newsgroup with your lame trolling attempts.

---
Naa... just pricking a few balloons. About time, too.
---

Are you also one of those weird fetishists? Man, you guys are creepy.

---
So now _you're_ speaking for everyone?
---

Yep.

---
According to you, you shouldn't!
---

Why don't you go into another fundie rant about God like you did here
yesterday? That was rather amusing.

---
What is it that so rankles you about the belief in a form of life
higher than our own that it causes you to bellow epithets?

Because typically, it's nuts that are doing it.

--
John Fields

 

[Noah Roberts]

Aunty Kreist wrote:

"Marco Dieckhoff" <dieck@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:0264c2-8i.ln1@hamlet.frbr.etc.tu-bs.de...

Sorry, but I can't see any reason why comp.os.linux.networking is
in the list of newsgroups to this topic.

Can anyone enlighten me? Otherwise please take care not to post
this thread to comp.os.linux.networking anymore. Thanks.

--
Marco Dieckhoff


It's crossposted because John Fields is trolling our group with preachy
Christian rants. Then, when he's posting from your group, he states the
opposite of what he's claimed here, so you guys won't think he's nuts. We're
just doing you the service of showing you all what a nutjob Fields is.

And we are indebted to you for your forsight and providing us with such
educational material indeed.

 

[Parse Tree]

Marco Dieckhoff wrote:

On 2005-01-20, Parse Tree <account@domain.extension> wrote:

Aunty Kreist wrote:


Um....because he also killed the human the fetus was attached to.
But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human life?

It doesn't. It's a parasite until it leaves the host.


Ah, "host". That's where comp.os.linux.networking comes in play, hm?

OK, I kill child processes every day on my host, hoping they don't
become zombies. And I don't feel guilty about that.

I hate zombie processes. I remember getting zombie processes a while
back on a Linux box in such a way that it required me to reboot it in
order to get rid of them.

I think NFS was involved somehow.

Anyway, have they fixed it so that zombie processes can always be killed
and whatnot? I've personally never noticed any such thing on Solaris, so
I can't really believe that it's unsolvable.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

---
The point is not whether it's conscious or not,

Absolutely it is. That's *all* that matters. Its what *determines*
whether "life" should be respected for its *own* sake. For example, a
carrot may be considered "life", but to respect it for itself is
daft.

---
I disagree. A carrot, using its life to grow and make itself food for
us should be respected. Treasured, actually. It even provides some of
the very air we breathe. Not in the same way one sentient human would
respect another, of course, but in its own way.

As I noted, and noted that I noted, its not for its *own* sake. The
carrot simply doesn't care. It cant. It cant feel. Its truly that
simple. We look after carrots because of their value to us, not to them.

Its completely daft to respect a non conscious object for its own sake.
Think about what you are really saying dude. Its no different from
claiming a baseball bat should be respected.

---

(although it could be
argued that our conception of "consciousness" isn't completely
accurate)

I agree definition on consciousness is difficult, but what ever it
is, that's the axiom I use.

it's that it's alive and has a goal, that goal being to
become what we call conscious.

Non conscious goals, in this context, are irrelevant by my book.

---
But quite relevant in mine. Without that unconscious goal, we would
not be sitting here having this discussion.

So what. A P4 has unconscious goals, are we to give it rights as well?

Unconscious goals are simple *not* sufficient to delimit life. We need
more.

---

Explain why a carrot, with is "alive", should be respected. Until you
can do this, you don't have an argument to respect a similar status
"life".

---
See earlier explanation.

Its not an explanation. Its was subjective waffle.

---



Sure I agree, that deciding just when an object is first conscious
is almost impossible, but it aint when an egg is just fertilised.
Its certainly after a few months minimum though.

---
If you don't know when, you can't say not when.\

Yep you can. Its not a line, there is a *region* where we can say
absolutely that it is not conscious from before one line and
conscious from another line after it. Only the region in-between the
time is there uncertainty. I gave a conservative figure of two
months. The figure I got this from was Carl Sagan noting that it is
at least 3 months before there is enough neural connections to form
a brain as we know it.

---
Yes, and that phrase, "as we know it", is what enables the
dehumanization of a fetus and the cheapening of life.

I was simply simplifying things to avoid a drawn out argument. A fetus
with no brain has no feelings to care about.

My point here was yeah, sure they may be a few bits and bobs associated
with neural connections, but in no way whatsoever, is they anything that
could be considered consciousness.

---

So, drawing the line at say, 2 months, means that we just let some
non conscious blobs of chemicals be accorded the status of conscious
blobs. So what. The error is on the side of the pro-lifers. I can
live with that

---
So if it's two months old it's OK to kill it,

Yep.

but if it's three months
old It's not?

Nope. The real data is somewhere after 3 months up to birth.

Look, one has to face facts. It is not *what* we are made of that makes
us, its how what makes us is *arranged*.

You cant get divorce yourself of the idea that we are truly a machine.
You think that our individual materials are special. They are not, other
than they are what makes consciousness.

As John Woodgate said, this is a question of drawing
lines, and mine is drawn with affording the fetus protection from the
instant of conception. Period.

But in my view, you opinion is made based on ill-informed prejudice
originating from your past, when you had little science to justify your
ideas. You are still relying on faith.

The chemicals of life are not special, that is, the chemicals by
themselves do not clasify something uniquly as "life". So basing ones
ideas on that idea that is flawed.

---

The concept of using "alive" as the decider is fundamentally flawed,
and missed by most. What truly matters is whether or not the object
has ever been conscious.

---
That's your _opinion_, Kevin, and no matter how you try to make it
sound like fact, it remains an opinion.

Yes, it is an opinion, but one that is based on sound reasoning from
known facts.

Give me an *argument* why consciousness should not be the the decider.
All you have done is state "life begins at conception". I counter this
with, how can you consider the feelings of a blob of chemicals if it
doesn't have any feelings?

It just makes no rational sense whatsoever. We care about sliocing up
babies becuse we know it hurts us, and we know that babies are hurt,
i.e. we both feel. We are both aware. Thats what *is* key. No matter how
much you try and ignore it.

---


"Consciousness should be the deciding issue on moral issues"

IMO!

---
Gibberish... IMO.

No. It simply hasn't sunk into you what is really being said, and what
the truth of life really is.

Forget your *faith* in your view, and actually try and convince
yourselves with a *logical* *argument* why a bunch oh molecules,
undergoing behaviour subject to the shrodinger equation should be given
respect.

When an explanation appears nebulous, it usually is.

---

---
For me, there _is_ no dividing line. If it's alive it won't die by
_my_ hand; YMMV

You must have some religious bent.

---
I just believe that a life which I didn't give isn't mine to take.

Sure, but you concept of relevant "life" is flawed. There is no relevant
"life" in a 2 month foetus. Its just a bunch of chemicals.

---

There is simply no good reason, imo, that an arbitrary definition of
"life" be used for such a decision.

---
The definition isn't arbitrary, a life begins when the new strand of
DNA is assembled.

Not at all. This is *your* personal concept of "life". You are using the
same word with one meaning in one context and another in a different
context to claim that support in one context means support in another.
Sure, biologists use the concept of "life" when referring to say,
bacteria or viruses, but this has nothing to do with "life" as referred
to us humans.

Human life is the total arrangement of the chemicals. It is the
arrangement that matters, not the building components.

This is obvious in that it would be hard to deny the possibility of
manufacturing consciousness without DNA. DNA is simply not sufficient or
necessary for human type life, imo, of course.

---

If you were never conscious, you would never have known anything.
Consciousness is key, not life.

---
Consciousness is a _consequence_ of life.

Not necessarily. Definitions of typicall life usually involve aspects of
self-replication, and other such fine details.

In principle, we could artificially construct something that is
conscious, but not "life" in any of our usually definitions.

If something is conscious are you suggesting that its ok to pull its
plug?

Relevant life is an *emergent* property of its parts. The parts, by
themselves, have no reverence. And I mean reverence, not relevance.

If you were never alive you could not have become conscious, so life
is the precursor to consciousness; the key.
---

Its this simple. Morals only depend on consciousness. No
consciousness no morals.

---
It's even simpler than that: No life, no consciousness.

Irrelevant, and not necessarily true by your simplified definition of
"life".

"It is not what we are made of that makes us, its how what makes us is
arranged"


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 Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Douglas O'Neal
<oneal@dbi.udel.edu> wrote (in <csrm52$leq$1@scrotar.nss.udel.edu&gt
about 'What Is God?', on Fri, 21 Jan 2005:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
snip

This "there are no morals without thy lord" is just bullshit to justify
the religious agenda.


God fits into this formula of balance :what-you-do =
what-you-get-in-return.


And is perfectly explained by evolution.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/morals.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html


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.

If I am reading the first link given, then a moral behavior is one
that maximizes the traits its possessor, presumably by genetic
inhertance. Thus a male's killing of other males and raping of
their wives would be moral since that maximizes that person's
number of offspring. Interesting that I don't know of any societies
that recognize this morality.

It's called 'war'. Recognize it now? Only since the latter part of the
20th century has the 'rape' bit even been frowned on, but it still goes
on. And some isn't rape at all, but consensual.

'Soldier's privilege'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[James Knott]

John Fields wrote:

People who need an imaginary person living in the
sky to tell them to behave need to be weeded out. They SHOULD kill
themselves off and leave the planet to those who are capbale of self
control.

---
What you're saying is that because they don't think and act in
accordance with the way you want them to they should be dead?

Works for me. ;-)