Driver to drive?

[John Fields]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:24:35 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

As for India, that's quite another matter overall. If *anyone* can make
that claim it would have been the Japanese and I doubt the Indians would
have liked them very much compared to us.

---
Back then, just two sides of the same coin.

That is, just two ruthless empires with world domination, by force, in
mind.

You got your first come-uppance in 1783, I believe, and they got theirs
in 1945.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:56:23 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[1] the attitudes of the Brits towards the Irish have been interesting
over the last few centuries.

BTW, how would you like to live in a religious state with Catholic influenced laws ?

---
We wouldn't; that's why we left England in the first place.
---

It's called the Irish Republic or Eire if you hadn't guessed. In recent times it
notably tried to prevent a young girl who had been raped travelling to the UK (or
elsewhere in the EU despite EU - of which Eire is a member- laws guaranteeing freedom
of movement) for an abortion (it's illegal in Eire). I forget the final outcome.

---
http://www.popline.org/docs/1010/084140.html
---

They wanted to force her to give birth for Papist reasoning.

---
Isn't murder illegal in the UK?
---

I suppose you'll say "she shouldn't have got raped" ?

---
You're always trying to put words in people's mouths, aren't you?

JF

 

[Eeyore]

JosephKK wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views

Which proves the sum total of ZERO.

Only to small minds like yours. People of strong conviction left
Europe for America, to build the life they wanted, away from the forced
religions of Europe even though they knew there was a good chance they
wouldn't survive the trip, and that there weren't homes and jobs waiting
for them.

The Pilgrims weren't being forced to worship a religion they didn't agree
with. They were merely a sect.

Horribly misinformed is the best that i call that. Read up on the
Reformation please. Religious persecution in Europe has over 1000
years history.

I did read it up.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

[1] the attitudes of the Brits towards the Irish have been interesting
over the last few centuries.

BTW, how would you like to live in a religious state with Catholic influenced laws ?
---
We wouldn't; that's why we left England in the first place.
---

It wasn't Catholic then you IDIOT.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:45:34 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

As for India, that's quite another matter overall. If *anyone* can make
that claim it would have been the Japanese and I doubt the Indians would
have liked them very much compared to us.
---
Back then, just two sides of the same coin.

That is, just two ruthless empires with world domination, by force, in
mind.

With 30,000 British soldiers in India and 300 million Indian populatiom, a
ratio of 1 soldier to every 10,000 Indians I'd like to see how you can back
up your claim of 'force'.

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/07/17/pro-british-and-amateurish-hitler-in-denial-of-mass-killing/

http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/british-rule-in-india-and-nazi-rule-what-is-the-difference/
---

The fact of the matter was that the British Empire was based on TRADE.

---
The British Empire was based on conquest and your taking what you wanted
while paying just enough to keep the producers you wanted it from alive.

The 'trade' part was only with those who weren't under your thumb.

JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:45:34 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

As for India, that's quite another matter overall. If *anyone* can make
that claim it would have been the Japanese and I doubt the Indians would
have liked them very much compared to us.
---
Back then, just two sides of the same coin.

That is, just two ruthless empires with world domination, by force, in
mind.

With 30,000 British soldiers in India and 300 million Indian populatiom, a
ratio of 1 soldier to every 10,000 Indians I'd like to see how you can back
up your claim of 'force'.

The fact of the matter was that the British Empire was based on TRADE.

Graham

Never seen the movie Ghandi?

Don't have access to Wikipedia?

From the sixteenth century, several European countries, including
Portugal, the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom, started
arriving as traders and later took advantage of the fractious nature
of relations between the kingdoms to establish colonies in the
country. By 1856, most of India was under the control of the British
East India Company.[27] A year later, a nationwide insurrection of
rebelling military units and kingdoms, variously referred to as the
India's First War of Independence or Sepoy Mutiny, seriously
challenged the British Company's control but eventually failed. As a
consequence, India came under the direct rule of the British Crown as
a colony of the British Empire.

During the first half of the twentieth century, a nationwide struggle
for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress and
other political organizations. In the 1920s and 1930, under a movement
led by Mahatma Gandhi, characterized by the commitment to ahimsa, or
non-violence, millions of protesters engaged in mass campaigns of
civil disobedience.[28] Finally, on 15 August 1947, India gained
independence from British rule, but was partitioned with independent
governments for the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan in
accordance with the wishes of the Muslim League, to create a nation
state along the lines of religion.[29] Three years later, on 26
January 1950, India became a republic and a new constitution came into
effect.[9]



The sad part about the British Empire, and about other European
colonial powers, is that as the world began to respect the rights of
non-white peoples, and the colonial empires began to dissolve, WWII
both freed the colonies and so traumatized the colonizers that the
former colonies were cut loose, pretty much on their own, when the
europeans should have been helping a lot more. The UK had food
rationing until 1954, and much of mainland europe was both devastated
and dealing with the Soviets... none had resources to spare. Africa,
in particular, went to hell.


John

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:47:55 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

[1] the attitudes of the Brits towards the Irish have been interesting
over the last few centuries.

BTW, how would you like to live in a religious state with Catholic influenced laws ?
---
We wouldn't; that's why we left England in the first place.
---

It wasn't Catholic then you IDIOT.

---
With only 73 years separation between Henry VIII's death and the
Mayflower Pilgrims' landing at Plymouth Rock, one would think England
would still have been pretty much under Rome's influence at the time.

Even under the then brand-new Church of England, England's laws would
certainly have been influenced by Rome, which is what I responded to.

You wrote it, so what is it you don't understand about "Catholic
influenced laws", donkey boy?

Hell, if it wasn't for Henry VIII you'd probably still be kissing the
pope's ass.

As it is you're still a religious state with an official government
sponsored church and existing civil laws which were influenced by the
Roman Catholic church.

JF

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

[1] the attitudes of the Brits towards the Irish have been interesting
over the last few centuries.

BTW, how would you like to live in a religious state with Catholic influenced laws ?
---
We wouldn't; that's why we left England in the first place.
---

It wasn't Catholic then you IDIOT.

---
With only 73 years separation between Henry VIII's death and the
Mayflower Pilgrims' landing at Plymouth Rock, one would think England
would still have been pretty much under Rome's influence at the time.

COMPLETE GARBAGE. As is all the rest of your idiotic speculation. The Pope ceased to have
any influence and there was the official Protestant Church of England instead.

Your knowledge of history is appallingly bad.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:06:44 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

[1] the attitudes of the Brits towards the Irish have been interesting
over the last few centuries.

BTW, how would you like to live in a religious state with Catholic influenced laws ?
---
We wouldn't; that's why we left England in the first place.
---

It wasn't Catholic then you IDIOT.

---
With only 73 years separation between Henry VIII's death and the
Mayflower Pilgrims' landing at Plymouth Rock, one would think England
would still have been pretty much under Rome's influence at the time.

COMPLETE GARBAGE. As is all the rest of your idiotic speculation. The Pope ceased to have
any influence and there was the official Protestant Church of England instead.

Your knowledge of history is appallingly bad.

In the light of yours being nonexistent, I suppose that's what you'd
think if I wrote something of a historical nature which you happened to
disagree with.

What you need to do if you want to argue Rome's role in English affairs
during the time between the beginning of Henry VIII's reign and James
I's death is study the lives of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth
I and James I.

For instance, you state that the Pope ceased to have any influence, but
did you know that under Mary I England was restored to Roman Catholicism
and she had many people burned at the stake for refusing to recant
Protestantism?

JF

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

John Fields wrote:

However, you seem to be saying that even though randomness exists,
which flies in thefaceof determinism, free will cannot exist under
either condition.

Not seems to be saying. Am saying!!!. I have stated this till I ambluein
theface..like its a dead parrot....

Yeah, but you had no choice. Your makeup determines that is what you
will do.

 

[Joerg]

mpm wrote:

On Oct 24, 6:53�pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net
wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:42:55 -0700 (PDT), Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:22 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:05:16 -0700, mpm wrote:
The point is, like everything else Republican the last 8 years, the
FCC also deregulated.
DE-regulated? Are you insane? What's "You must pay your hard-earned money
for this box to see TV any more" other than EXCESSIVE regulation?
It is pure market forces. You want to watch the TV in future you have
to buy the box.
A bit monopolistic I grant you. But if you want to receive the signal
then you have to buy a receiver and decoder.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Absolutely. �Now for how many years have all new receivers been
required to be equipped with DTV receivers? �Compare with historical
life.
Precious few years. I have seen smaller TVs in stores as recently as
2005 that did not have a digital tuner. Some larger ones read
"DTV-ready" on the info sheet but upon asking I was told that you'd have
to buy a module once those are ready. When they would be ready or what
they'd cost was unknown to the sales person. Great, huh?

I would not be surprised one bit if the modules for some sets never
materialized. But IMHO the worst is that obviously the proper amount of
multipath field testing seems not to have happened. My wife says there's
two good Westerns on Ch-29 Saturday. Chances of the DTV signal falling
apart are roughly 50:50, depending on cloud movement. So I am not
getting too excited just yet, maybe we'll be playing pool.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not to rag on fast food, but whenever I heard the term "50-50" now, I
think of something a good frined of mine said recently:

It's a 50% chance you'll order will be right, and 50% that it will
still be hot.
(He's a senior executive over at Checkers...)

IIRC, sets over a certain size were required to be DTV-ready by x-
date.
That would likely not have included sets already in inventory by x-
date, which has the effect of tolling out the actual compliance date.
Smaller sets were unaffected by this regulation.

I doubt "DTV ready" could be applied to a set for which some future
module would provide compliance with the directive (for larger sets),
but for smaller sets this could certainly have been the case. I think
by larger, the FCC meant 42", but I would have review that. The
directives were via Public Notice, so it's a simple matter to look
them up a fcc.gov

IIRC the size requirements were ratcheted down in stages as Feb-2009
drew closer. But non-compliance was rampant AFAICT.

Having deep ties to the broadcast industry, I can state with some
authority that it is a GOOD THING the FCC is finally sticking by a
deadline. Otherwise, the transition would never take place. It took
nearly 2 decades just to get the NTSC-color transition done. --and
that was a compatible format change!!

It would have been good if they had done more extensive field testing.
That would have shown the multipath problems and there would have been
time to fix stuff. Now it's too late.

In some ways, it "should" be eaiser today. Even though there are more
actual TV sets today, the majority of viewers get their signals via
satellite or cable. In most cases, only the Over-the-Air folks will
affected directly by the converter-box requirement.

Lots of those out here. During an evening stroll a short while ago, and
this is no joke: "By the way, did you guys already get TV converters?"
.... "For what? We don't need no set-top box because we use an antenna."
.... "Well, otherwise your TV will quit in February" ... "WHAT!!?" ...
"You can get two coupons, I'll email you the link" ... "Coupons? Really?"

Then, once the converters arrive, a sober awakening begins. Every other
night the audio cuts out, video becomes blocky, then it stops with a
Picasso-style screen, then blue screen "no signal". Now everyone
including us just switches back to the analog channel which always
works. But guess what'll happen at the phone bank of their congress
representative in February?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

JosephKK wrote:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:29:03 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:21 am, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2008-10-21, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net> wrote:

a crap picture.
A year ago it used to be 'nearly acceptable' now it's not even nearly.
Constant freezing, blocking out, loss of sound, paint-it-by-numbers colours
and Max Headroom staccatos.
An inbuilt tendency to conspiracy theory has deduced I'm losing bit
bandwidth to that HD thing the broadcasters seem to be pushing. They switch
off analogue in a couple of months, the telly's (and STBs) look like they'll
be heading down the council recycling centre at the same time.
I wonder who voted for that crap,
the decendants of those who chose NTSC before colour TV was mature.
I always believed that Never Twice (the) Same Color (sic) was well
named and that the color instablity was an intrinsic problem with the
modulation technology until I lived in Japan where they correctly
implemented the NTSC specification. Flesh tones of US newscasters
drifting between Addams family green and purple tinges was most
entertaining. The improvement that clamped flesh tones to dead flesh
orange was even funnier.

It was not an intrinsic problem. Our NTSC color TV works just fine.
Always did. We live in an area of heavy and time-varying multipath
distortion yet the colors are always crisp and never run away.

And this _is_ in the US.

[...]

You must be a young pup. My memory of the early days is quite diff
rent. Hell, with a small effort i can timeline the changes that
helped make it what it is today. But this NG ain't worth it today.

Sure, but: In Europe they didn't even have color TV at that time. IIRC
color TV came out at the end of the 60's over there but PAL sets were so
prohibitive in cost that very few people had one until a decade later.
The early sets were also quite fickle so you better had a cousin who
worked in radio/TV repair or cost would go up even more.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

Eeyore wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

It is a bit worrying that electronics engineers are having trouble
getting adequate performance out of dtv. What chance the general
public?

I think it's good. Maybe they'll start reading again and their brains might come
alive.

They may have to. Unless they have an EE friend who also has a spectrum
analyzer and happens not to be afraid of heights.

Or they cave in and finally shove those $40-50/month over to the cable
company. Which may be a not so unintended consequence ... 'nuff said ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joel Koltner]

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:OaKNk.4552$x%.4430@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...

It would have been good if they had done more extensive field testing. That
would have shown the multipath problems and there would have been time to
fix stuff. Now it's too late.

You don't think they'll be enough continued demands for over-the-air reception
that chipsets will, over time, improve? Or you think the problem is so
fundamentally tied to the choice of modulation scheme that it's unlikely to
get much better than it already is?

Lots of those out here. During an evening stroll a short while ago, and this
is no joke: "By the way, did you guys already get TV converters?"

My wife's grandmother (who's 80ish) knew about the changeover when we talked
to here about it some weeks ago, although she does have numerous tech-savvy
grandkids...

 

[Martin Brown]

On Oct 28, 7:59 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
wrote:

mpm wrote:
I doubt "DTV ready" could be applied to a set for which some future
module would provide compliance with the directive (for larger sets),
but for smaller sets this could certainly have been the case.  I think
by larger, the FCC meant 42", but I would have review that.  The
directives were via Public Notice, so it's a simple matter to look
them up a fcc.gov

IIRC the size requirements were ratcheted down in stages as Feb-2009
drew closer. But non-compliance was rampant AFAICT.

Having deep ties to the broadcast industry, I can state with some
authority that it is a GOOD THING the FCC is finally sticking by a
deadline. Otherwise, the transition would never take place.  It took
nearly 2 decades just to get the NTSC-color transition done.  --and
that was a compatible format change!!

It would have been good if they had done more extensive field testing.
That would have shown the multipath problems and there would have been
time to fix stuff. Now it's too late.

In some ways, it "should" be eaiser today.  Even though there are more
actual TV sets today, the majority of viewers get their signals via
satellite or cable.  In most cases, only the Over-the-Air folks will
affected directly by the converter-box requirement.

Lots of those out here. During an evening stroll a short while ago, and
this is no joke: "By the way, did you guys already get TV converters?"
... "For what? We don't need no set-top box because we use an antenna."
... "Well, otherwise your TV will quit in February" ... "WHAT!!?" ...
"You can get two coupons, I'll email you the link" ... "Coupons? Really?"

Then, once the converters arrive, a sober awakening begins. Every other
night the audio cuts out, video becomes blocky, then it stops with a
Picasso-style screen, then blue screen "no signal". Now everyone
including us just switches back to the analog channel which always
works. But guess what'll happen at the phone bank of their congress
representative in February?

The "BIG BANG" conversion technique so loved by expensive management
consultants. No safety net or adequate system testing so that when it
all goes pear shaped you have to fork out for more of their over
priced "services" to undo the total mess. I guess the current
administration is not expecting to win and are leaving a time bomb for
the new lot.

The UK which is a much smaller proposition is converting to digital
gradually. And I expect the major cities and London in particular will
be the last areas to lose their analogue feeds. So far the test zones
for switch off have been in the northern boondocks.

Incidentally Joerg if you already have broadband are there no ISP
based DTV on demand services in the USA?

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On Oct 28, 8:02 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:29:03 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:21 am, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2008-10-21, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net> wrote:

a crap picture.
A year ago it used to be 'nearly acceptable' now it's not even nearly.
Constant freezing, blocking out, loss of sound, paint-it-by-numbers colours
and Max Headroom staccatos.
An inbuilt tendency to conspiracy theory has deduced I'm losing bit
bandwidth to that HD thing the broadcasters seem to be pushing. They switch
off analogue in a couple of months, the telly's (and STBs) look like they'll
be heading down the council recycling centre at the same time.
I wonder who voted for that crap,
the decendants of those who chose NTSC before colour TV was mature.
I always believed that Never Twice (the) Same Color (sic) was well
named and that the color instablity was an intrinsic problem with the
modulation technology until I lived in Japan where they correctly
implemented the NTSC specification. Flesh tones of US newscasters
drifting between Addams family green and purple tinges was most
entertaining. The improvement that clamped flesh tones to dead flesh
orange was even funnier.

It was not an intrinsic problem. Our NTSC color TV works just fine.
Always did. We live in an area of heavy and time-varying multipath
distortion yet the colors are always crisp and never run away.

And this _is_ in the US.

Modern ones do. But the US made sets even as late as the 80's were
pretty appalling.

[...]

You must be a young pup.  My memory of the early days is quite diff
rent.  Hell, with a small effort i can timeline the changes that
helped make it what it is today.  But this NG ain't worth it today.

Sure, but: In Europe they didn't even have color TV at that time. IIRC
color TV came out at the end of the 60's over there but PAL sets were so
prohibitive in cost that very few people had one until a decade later.
The early sets were also quite fickle so you better had a cousin who
worked in radio/TV repair or cost would go up even more.

It was broadcast colour from about 1967. I distinctly remember
watching parts of the moon landing run up from Apollo 8 onwards in
colour. The colours in those days were pretty pasty as they hadn't
properly figured out how to remove impure yellow emssions from the
blue phosphors. The fickle behaviour of the early colour TV sets led
to several guys making a fortune renting out TV sets with a combined
repair service. The foremost practitioner of this art made enough to
found a new Cambridge college - Robinson (aka Radio Rentals) college.

My uncles set spectacularly caught fire showering sparks and molten
innards on the carpet. From looking at the shielding of the EHT unit I
got the impression that the X-ray dose to service engineers was non-
trivial.

ISTR it was only in the mid to late 90's that Japanese manufacturers
accepted liablity for failures in their TV sets burning down houses in
the domestic market.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:59:31 -0700, Joerg wrote:

Then, once the converters arrive, a sober awakening begins. Every other
night the audio cuts out, video becomes blocky, then it stops with a
Picasso-style screen, then blue screen "no signal". Now everyone including
us just switches back to the analog channel which always works. But guess
what'll happen at the phone bank of their congress representative in
February?

The Kidz-'n-the-Hood won't bother with calling their congresscritters -
they'll be busy torching the TV stations. >:->
--
Cheers!
Rich

Vote None of the Above:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:30:12 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:06:44 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

[1] the attitudes of the Brits towards the Irish have been interesting
over the last few centuries.

BTW, how would you like to live in a religious state with Catholic influenced laws ?
---
We wouldn't; that's why we left England in the first place.
---

It wasn't Catholic then you IDIOT.

---
With only 73 years separation between Henry VIII's death and the
Mayflower Pilgrims' landing at Plymouth Rock, one would think England
would still have been pretty much under Rome's influence at the time.

COMPLETE GARBAGE. As is all the rest of your idiotic speculation. The Pope ceased to have
any influence and there was the official Protestant Church of England instead.

Your knowledge of history is appallingly bad.

In the light of yours being nonexistent, I suppose that's what you'd
think if I wrote something of a historical nature which you happened to
disagree with.

What you need to do if you want to argue Rome's role in English affairs
during the time between the beginning of Henry VIII's reign and James
I's death is study the lives of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth
I and James I.

For instance, you state that the Pope ceased to have any influence, but
did you know that under Mary I England was restored to Roman Catholicism
and she had many people burned at the stake for refusing to recant
Protestantism?

Yup. And she married Philip of Spain.

JF

Looks like us Yankees know a lot more about English history than he
does.

John

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:34:33 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

MooseFET wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Rich Grise wrote

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she really that
dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

She is a theocrat + Dick Cheney with breasts. She believes that the
VP has actual powers beyond breaking ties in the senate. She has
motivated that part of the republican base that wishes to centralize
all power in Washington DC and into the hands of a few elite.

This sounds more like what my brother-in-law was saying and with McCain's health
in question she could be President.

Graham

And that is precisely one of the things that worry me.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

With only 73 years separation between Henry VIII's death and the
Mayflower Pilgrims' landing at Plymouth Rock, one would think England
would still have been pretty much under Rome's influence at the time.

COMPLETE GARBAGE. As is all the rest of your idiotic speculation. The Pope ceased to have
any influence and there was the official Protestant Church of England instead.

Your knowledge of history is appallingly bad.

In the light of yours being nonexistent

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Do they specially edit history books in the USA to be anti-British ? And plain WRONG ! Seems
like it to me.

Graham