com_dotnet

phpinfo() has a "com_dotnet" section.

It's kind of odd.

Here it says...

COM Support: enabled
DCOM Support: disabled
.net Support: enabled

What exactly is COM support?
What exactly is DCOM support?
And what exactly is .net support? And why would it say
enabled when .NET is not installed?

DCOM means an ActiveX file gets used. COM pretty much
means the same thing. Those files tend to be based upon
an object model and have a few extra functions there to
help with various programming environments.

ordinal hint RVA name

1 0 000017A6 DllCanUnloadNow
2 1 0000177A DllGetClassObject
3 2 00001790 DllRegisterServer
4 3 00001764 DllUnregisterServer

Other than that COM is not much different than standard
libraries.

And DCOM... that one seems like it might be a COM file put
into a publicly accessible folder, but I'll need some more
help here, if such is available, because something is not
sitting too well here.

Thanks.

--
Jim Carlock
Swimming Pool, Spa And Water Feature Builders
http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/

Re: com_dotnet

Jim Carlock wrote:
> phpinfo() has a "com_dotnet" section.
>
> It's kind of odd.
>
> Here it says...
>
> COM Support: enabled
> DCOM Support: disabled
> .net Support: enabled
>
> What exactly is COM support?
> What exactly is DCOM support?
> And what exactly is .net support? And why would it say
> enabled when .NET is not installed?

Those are all Microsoft thingies.
COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows Foundation
Classes.
DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
implications.
..NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
everything-to-everybody architecture.


> And DCOM... that one seems like it might be a COM file put
> into a publicly accessible folder, but I'll need some more
> help here, if such is available, because something is not
> sitting too well here.

Re: com_dotnet

> Here it says...
>
> COM Support: enabled
> DCOM Support: disabled
> .net Support: enabled
>

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote...
: Those are all Microsoft thingies.
:
: COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows
: Foundation Classes.

COM was originally called OLE (object linking and embedding).
Basically any regular libary DLL can become COM if it includes
some extra OLE functions to handle object creation, and letting
the system know that it can create classful objects. Microsoft
adopted new words like, ActiveX and COM to replace OLE (it sounds
so much better!). The ActiveX libraries (files) were later branded
into two different types of COM, called distributed COM and COM.

: DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that
: was added because when 95 came out, MS had not considered
: certain internet implications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Component_Object_Mo del

DCOM was originally called network OLE. And it's based upon RPC.
Does it have a place in PHP? As far as communicating via HTTP,
does anyone use it and can anyone provide an example of it's use?
I've used GET and POST to get things accomplished with PHP, I'm
curious as to how to use DCOM with PHP.

: .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
: everything-to-everybody architecture.

And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
which fill a few folders.


--
Jim Carlock
Swimming Pool, Spa And Water Feature Builders
http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/

Re: com_dotnet

Jim Carlock wrote:

> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
> which fill a few folders.

I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something they hope
to have PHP doing in the future.

It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge should be.

Re: com_dotnet

> Those are all Microsoft thingies.

again sanders, if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, why the
hell would you announce it to the world as if you did know?

> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows Foundation
> Classes.

well, you got the achronym right anyway.

> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
> because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
> implications.

holy fucking shit! you really have no clue here!!!

> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
> everything-to-everybody architecture.

again, further proof you have no fucking clue.

..net is an architectural redesign and implementation of what com tries to
achieve...however the scope is much more broad than that since ms hopes to
reach complete platform independence with its use. it is also birthed in the
dispute(s) between sun microsystems and ms and ms' use of what once was
their version of java virtual machine.

if you didn't know any of that (which is quite obviously the case), you
could have at least either kept your yap shut or even googled just a bit
more and found out. but i suppose you love the taste of your own feet.

>> And DCOM... that one seems like it might be a COM file put
>> into a publicly accessible folder, but I'll need some more
>> help here, if such is available, because something is not
>> sitting too well here.

dcom is similar to com but allows for remote instanciation of objects
(similar to remote procedure calls)...and by remote, i mean creating/using
com objects on a completely different server. that's not the end of it, but
that is where i'm leaving it.

now back to you, sanders...get a clue!

Re: com_dotnet

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Jim Carlock wrote:
>
>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>> which fill a few folders.
>
> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks strangely
> note that this is just a place-holder for something they hope to have PHP
> doing in the future.

again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on your part, you
could keep yourself from embarasment. the documentation simply states that:

======
This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this extension -- including
the names of its functions and anything else documented about this
extension -- may change without notice in a future release of PHP. Use this
extension at your own risk.

======

now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from your
keyboard?

> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge should
> be.

more like an example of the twainian proverb:

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool
than to open it and remove all doubt.

which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your yap and
removing all doubt.

Re: com_dotnet

"Jim Carlock" wrote in message
news:46e7460f$0$11009$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Here it says...
>>
>> COM Support: enabled
>> DCOM Support: disabled
>> .net Support: enabled
>>
> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
> .net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
> which fill a few folders.

..net support has nothing to do with .net being installed on a system,
actually. it means that the ability for php to interact with .net has been
enabled. the php source code that handles such interactions comes in the
form of a c/c++ module that gets included in php when 1) the module exists
and 2) is included as an argument when php is compiled before its use as an
A) executable cgi, B) dll, or C) other module (as commonly used in
conjunction with apache).

whether or not .net itself is installed is a seperate issue. php .net
support enabled simply means that you have the ability to use .net through
php...of course, .net must be installed unless you intend to have php throw
errors at you when you do try to use .net and the framework isn't there.

btw, the .net framework is well over 50MB.

does all that make sense?

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>
>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>> which fill a few folders.
>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks strangely
>> note that this is just a place-holder for something they hope to have PHP
>> doing in the future.
>
> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on your part, you
> could keep yourself from embarasment. the documentation simply states that:
>
> ======
> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this extension -- including
> the names of its functions and anything else documented about this
> extension -- may change without notice in a future release of PHP. Use this
> extension at your own risk.
>
> ======
>
> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from your
> keyboard?
>
>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge should
>> be.
>
> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>
> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool
> than to open it and remove all doubt.
>
> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your yap and
> removing all doubt.
>
>

You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right about it
than you are.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
> "Jim Carlock" wrote in message
> news:46e7460f$0$11009$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> Here it says...
>>>
>>> COM Support: enabled
>>> DCOM Support: disabled
>>> .net Support: enabled
>>>
>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>> .net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>> which fill a few folders.
>
> .net support has nothing to do with .net being installed on a system,
> actually. it means that the ability for php to interact with .net has been
> enabled. the php source code that handles such interactions comes in the
> form of a c/c++ module that gets included in php when 1) the module exists
> and 2) is included as an argument when php is compiled before its use as an
> A) executable cgi, B) dll, or C) other module (as commonly used in
> conjunction with apache).
>
> whether or not .net itself is installed is a seperate issue. php .net
> support enabled simply means that you have the ability to use .net through
> php...of course, .net must be installed unless you intend to have php throw
> errors at you when you do try to use .net and the framework isn't there.
>
> btw, the .net framework is well over 50MB.
>
> does all that make sense?
>
>

Nope. By your argument, MySQL support would be enabled whether or not
the MySQL libraries are installed or not. But it isn't.

PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But
obviously, since the extension is experimental, they still have some
bugs to work out.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something they hope
>>> to have PHP doing in the future.
>>
>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on your part,
>> you could keep yourself from embarasment. the documentation simply states
>> that:
>>
>> ======
>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this extension --
>> including the names of its functions and anything else documented about
>> this extension -- may change without notice in a future release of PHP.
>> Use this extension at your own risk.
>>
>> ======
>>
>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from your
>> keyboard?
>>
>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge should
>>> be.
>>
>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>
>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
>> fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>
>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your yap and
>> removing all doubt.
>
> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right about it
> than you are.

i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?

Re: com_dotnet

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:3_2dnRrfUIjqxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jim Carlock" wrote in message
>> news:46e7460f$0$11009$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> Here it says...
>>>>
>>>> COM Support: enabled
>>>> DCOM Support: disabled
>>>> .net Support: enabled
>>>>
>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>> .net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>> which fill a few folders.
>>
>> .net support has nothing to do with .net being installed on a system,
>> actually. it means that the ability for php to interact with .net has
>> been enabled. the php source code that handles such interactions comes in
>> the form of a c/c++ module that gets included in php when 1) the module
>> exists and 2) is included as an argument when php is compiled before its
>> use as an A) executable cgi, B) dll, or C) other module (as commonly used
>> in conjunction with apache).
>>
>> whether or not .net itself is installed is a seperate issue. php .net
>> support enabled simply means that you have the ability to use .net
>> through php...of course, .net must be installed unless you intend to have
>> php throw errors at you when you do try to use .net and the framework
>> isn't there.
>>
>> btw, the .net framework is well over 50MB.
>>
>> does all that make sense?
>
> Nope. By your argument, MySQL support would be enabled whether or not the
> MySQL libraries are installed or not. But it isn't.

perhaps i'm just not being clear enough. i can build php with or without
mysql support. and on my system, mysql may or may not be installed. if i
don't build in mysql support, i cannot use mysql calls to a mysql db. if i
do compile php with mysql support yet do not mysql installed, i can make the
mysql calls from php but they will all fail...mysql is not installed on my
system (assuming i'm connecting on the same pc). however, if i both compile
php with mysql support *and* have mysql installed, then things should go
smoothly. this assumes that mysql is compilable in its entirety into php and
doesn't have to be loaded into php whenever php is used (this assumption is
not due to my lack of understanding on how php and mysql work, but is to
more relate to how .net support is provided by php).

while php may very well provide mysql libraries, it certainly has no
relationship to microsoft such that it would warrant providing the .net
framework especially given how bulky it is and the frequency at which it is
updated and outdated.

> PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But obviously,
> since the extension is experimental, they still have some bugs to work
> out.

yes, which is what i was trying to state...i just didn't go into the
'experimental' part of it. if i need to use .net developed source in php, i
just compile it to a standard COM object and use php's COM function to
consume it. works for me.

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something they hope
>>>> to have PHP doing in the future.
>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on your part,
>>> you could keep yourself from embarasment. the documentation simply states
>>> that:
>>>
>>> ======
>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this extension --
>>> including the names of its functions and anything else documented about
>>> this extension -- may change without notice in a future release of PHP.
>>> Use this extension at your own risk.
>>>
>>> ======
>>>
>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from your
>>> keyboard?
>>>
>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge should
>>>> be.
>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>
>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
>>> fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>
>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your yap and
>>> removing all doubt.
>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right about it
>> than you are.
>
> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>
>

His comments like:

"Those are all Microsoft thingies.
COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows Foundation
Classes.
DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
implications.
..NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
everything-to-everybody architecture. "

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:3_2dnRrfUIjqxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jim Carlock" wrote in message
>>> news:46e7460f$0$11009$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>> Here it says...
>>>>>
>>>>> COM Support: enabled
>>>>> DCOM Support: disabled
>>>>> .net Support: enabled
>>>>>
>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>> .net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>> .net support has nothing to do with .net being installed on a system,
>>> actually. it means that the ability for php to interact with .net has
>>> been enabled. the php source code that handles such interactions comes in
>>> the form of a c/c++ module that gets included in php when 1) the module
>>> exists and 2) is included as an argument when php is compiled before its
>>> use as an A) executable cgi, B) dll, or C) other module (as commonly used
>>> in conjunction with apache).
>>>
>>> whether or not .net itself is installed is a seperate issue. php .net
>>> support enabled simply means that you have the ability to use .net
>>> through php...of course, .net must be installed unless you intend to have
>>> php throw errors at you when you do try to use .net and the framework
>>> isn't there.
>>>
>>> btw, the .net framework is well over 50MB.
>>>
>>> does all that make sense?
>> Nope. By your argument, MySQL support would be enabled whether or not the
>> MySQL libraries are installed or not. But it isn't.
>
> perhaps i'm just not being clear enough. i can build php with or without
> mysql support. and on my system, mysql may or may not be installed. if i
> don't build in mysql support, i cannot use mysql calls to a mysql db. if i
> do compile php with mysql support yet do not mysql installed, i can make the
> mysql calls from php but they will all fail...mysql is not installed on my
> system (assuming i'm connecting on the same pc). however, if i both compile
> php with mysql support *and* have mysql installed, then things should go
> smoothly. this assumes that mysql is compilable in its entirety into php and
> doesn't have to be loaded into php whenever php is used (this assumption is
> not due to my lack of understanding on how php and mysql work, but is to
> more relate to how .net support is provided by php).
>

Have you ever tried to build PHP with mysql support if you don't have
mysql on the system? It doesn't work. The build will fail.

And have you tried building PHP with mysql support on another system,
then load it on a system which doesn't have mysql? That doesn't work,
either. PHP won't load.

> while php may very well provide mysql libraries, it certainly has no
> relationship to microsoft such that it would warrant providing the .net
> framework especially given how bulky it is and the frequency at which it is
> updated and outdated.
>

Check again. PHP does not supply mysql libraries any longer.

>> PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But obviously,
>> since the extension is experimental, they still have some bugs to work
>> out.
>
> yes, which is what i was trying to state...i just didn't go into the
> 'experimental' part of it. if i need to use .net developed source in php, i
> just compile it to a standard COM object and use php's COM function to
> consume it. works for me.
>
>

I just don't use OS-specific code. Works for me.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something they
>>>>> hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on your
>>>> part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the documentation
>>>> simply states that:
>>>>
>>>> ======
>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this extension --
>>>> including the names of its functions and anything else documented about
>>>> this extension -- may change without notice in a future release of PHP.
>>>> Use this extension at your own risk.
>>>>
>>>> ======
>>>>
>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from your
>>>> keyboard?
>>>>
>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge
>>>>> should be.
>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>
>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
>>>> fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>
>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your yap and
>>>> removing all doubt.
>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right about it
>>> than you are.
>>
>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>
> His comments like:
>
> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows Foundation
> Classes.
> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
> because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
> implications.
> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
> everything-to-everybody architecture. "

lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by the above.
having worked with all three from their inception, these definitions are
either wildly understated or wildy incorrect. take your pick. if my
explanation of each seems less correct/accurate than the above...what can i
say?

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>>>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something they
>>>>>> hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on your
>>>>> part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the documentation
>>>>> simply states that:
>>>>>
>>>>> ======
>>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this extension --
>>>>> including the names of its functions and anything else documented about
>>>>> this extension -- may change without notice in a future release of PHP.
>>>>> Use this extension at your own risk.
>>>>>
>>>>> ======
>>>>>
>>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from your
>>>>> keyboard?
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge
>>>>>> should be.
>>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
>>>>> fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your yap and
>>>>> removing all doubt.
>>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right about it
>>>> than you are.
>>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>> His comments like:
>>
>> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
>> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows Foundation
>> Classes.
>> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
>> because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
>> implications.
>> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
>> everything-to-everybody architecture. "
>
> lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by the above.
> having worked with all three from their inception, these definitions are
> either wildly understated or wildy incorrect. take your pick. if my
> explanation of each seems less correct/accurate than the above...what can i
> say?
>
>

Steve,

Nothing to do with wiki's. I've also worked on them since their
inception. And they are pretty accurate.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

> Have you ever tried to build PHP with mysql support if you don't have
> mysql on the system? It doesn't work. The build will fail.
>
> And have you tried building PHP with mysql support on another system, then
> load it on a system which doesn't have mysql? That doesn't work, either.
> PHP won't load.

you're missing the point entirely! think of how most people install php on a
windows system. they use the windows binary installed. that means php is
pre-compiled on a system that meets all the requirements of your first
statement...1) compiled mysql support into php on a 2) system that has mysql
on said system. however even though support is compiled into the .exe, the
use of mysql on a target system where mysql isn't installed will bark when
you try to use it.

what i'm saying is that this exactly parallels ".net support enabled". php
does NOT do/provide any additional features to ensure that third party
applications are installed, nor should it. php either has the extensions
compiled in or loads them when executed. these extensions/modules determine
whether support is enabled/disabled which has nothing to do with the
existence of the actual third-party application on a target system...the
question pondered by the op.

>> while php may very well provide mysql libraries, it certainly has no
>> relationship to microsoft such that it would warrant providing the .net
>> framework especially given how bulky it is and the frequency at which it
>> is updated and outdated.
>>
>
> Check again. PHP does not supply mysql libraries any longer.

again, you're missing the point. it used to as a module but now is compiled
in...which was not my point anyway, which i was careful to point out when
following the "by your argument" line of comparison. whether a compiled
feature of php or a loadable module, it is the code that provided the
support to use external tools such as .net and this support is *completely*
independent of whether that external tool is actually installed on a target
system.

>>> PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But
>>> obviously, since the extension is experimental, they still have some
>>> bugs to work out.
>>
>> yes, which is what i was trying to state...i just didn't go into the
>> 'experimental' part of it. if i need to use .net developed source in php,
>> i just compile it to a standard COM object and use php's COM function to
>> consume it. works for me.
>
> I just don't use OS-specific code. Works for me.

i'm glad you've got that leeway. as for me, i build what my
paycheck-provider asks. ;^)

Re: com_dotnet

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:u_idnTg1lo8NeHrbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>>>>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something they
>>>>>>> hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on your
>>>>>> part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the documentation
>>>>>> simply states that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ======
>>>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this extension --
>>>>>> including the names of its functions and anything else documented
>>>>>> about this extension -- may change without notice in a future release
>>>>>> of PHP. Use this extension at your own risk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>
>>>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from your
>>>>>> keyboard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge
>>>>>>> should be.
>>>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
>>>>>> fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your yap
>>>>>> and removing all doubt.
>>>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right about
>>>>> it than you are.
>>>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>>> His comments like:
>>>
>>> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
>>> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows Foundation
>>> Classes.
>>> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
>>> because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
>>> implications.
>>> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
>>> everything-to-everybody architecture. "
>>
>> lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by the above.
>> having worked with all three from their inception, these definitions are
>> either wildly understated or wildy incorrect. take your pick. if my
>> explanation of each seems less correct/accurate than the above...what can
>> i say?
>
> Steve,
>
> Nothing to do with wiki's. I've also worked on them since their
> inception. And they are pretty accurate.

so you're telling me you agree with his definition of DCOM (a patch work
add-on) and .net?

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:u_idnTg1lo8NeHrbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>> news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>>>>>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something they
>>>>>>>> hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on your
>>>>>>> part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the documentation
>>>>>>> simply states that:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this extension --
>>>>>>> including the names of its functions and anything else documented
>>>>>>> about this extension -- may change without notice in a future release
>>>>>>> of PHP. Use this extension at your own risk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from your
>>>>>>> keyboard?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge
>>>>>>>> should be.
>>>>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
>>>>>>> fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your yap
>>>>>>> and removing all doubt.
>>>>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right about
>>>>>> it than you are.
>>>>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>>>> His comments like:
>>>>
>>>> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
>>>> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows Foundation
>>>> Classes.
>>>> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
>>>> because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
>>>> implications.
>>>> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
>>>> everything-to-everybody architecture. "
>>> lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by the above.
>>> having worked with all three from their inception, these definitions are
>>> either wildly understated or wildy incorrect. take your pick. if my
>>> explanation of each seems less correct/accurate than the above...what can
>>> i say?
>> Steve,
>>
>> Nothing to do with wiki's. I've also worked on them since their
>> inception. And they are pretty accurate.
>
> so you're telling me you agree with his definition of DCOM (a patch work
> add-on) and .net?
>
>

Yep. DCOM was a patch-work addon when the internet because popular.
But then Win95 was patchwork, also.

Also, MS would love to see everyone drop Java, PHP, Perl and other
languages and just use .NET. And they're doing everything they can to
get people to do it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
>> Have you ever tried to build PHP with mysql support if you don't have
>> mysql on the system? It doesn't work. The build will fail.
>>
>> And have you tried building PHP with mysql support on another system, then
>> load it on a system which doesn't have mysql? That doesn't work, either.
>> PHP won't load.
>
> you're missing the point entirely! think of how most people install php on a
> windows system. they use the windows binary installed. that means php is
> pre-compiled on a system that meets all the requirements of your first
> statement...1) compiled mysql support into php on a 2) system that has mysql
> on said system. however even though support is compiled into the .exe, the
> use of mysql on a target system where mysql isn't installed will bark when
> you try to use it.
>

Not at all. OK, on a Windows system MySQL support is supplied by
php_mysql.dll. And if MySQL isn't installed, the DLL won't load and
phpinfo() will show MySQL support isn't enabled.

The MySQL interface is NOT compiled into PHP on the distributed Windows
binaries - or you'd never be able to run PHP unless you had MySQL installed.

> what i'm saying is that this exactly parallels ".net support enabled". php
> does NOT do/provide any additional features to ensure that third party
> applications are installed, nor should it. php either has the extensions
> compiled in or loads them when executed. these extensions/modules determine
> whether support is enabled/disabled which has nothing to do with the
> existence of the actual third-party application on a target system...the
> question pondered by the op.
>

Nope, it's just the opposite.

>>> while php may very well provide mysql libraries, it certainly has no
>>> relationship to microsoft such that it would warrant providing the .net
>>> framework especially given how bulky it is and the frequency at which it
>>> is updated and outdated.
>>>
>> Check again. PHP does not supply mysql libraries any longer.
>
> again, you're missing the point. it used to as a module but now is compiled
> in...which was not my point anyway, which i was careful to point out when
> following the "by your argument" line of comparison. whether a compiled
> feature of php or a loadable module, it is the code that provided the
> support to use external tools such as .net and this support is *completely*
> independent of whether that external tool is actually installed on a target
> system.
>

No, it is not. It is a dll loaded dynamically at startup, if the
php.ini file says to load it and the MySQL libraries are properly installed.

>>>> PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But
>>>> obviously, since the extension is experimental, they still have some
>>>> bugs to work out.
>>> yes, which is what i was trying to state...i just didn't go into the
>>> 'experimental' part of it. if i need to use .net developed source in php,
>>> i just compile it to a standard COM object and use php's COM function to
>>> consume it. works for me.
>> I just don't use OS-specific code. Works for me.
>
> i'm glad you've got that leeway. as for me, i build what my
> paycheck-provider asks. ;^)
>
>

So do I. :-)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:Z76dnb4wSanKgHXbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:u_idnTg1lo8NeHrbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>> news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>>>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>>>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>>>>>>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something they
>>>>>>>>> hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>>>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on your
>>>>>>>> part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the documentation
>>>>>>>> simply states that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this extension --
>>>>>>>> including the names of its functions and anything else documented
>>>>>>>> about this extension -- may change without notice in a future
>>>>>>>> release of PHP. Use this extension at your own risk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from
>>>>>>>> your keyboard?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge
>>>>>>>>> should be.
>>>>>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are
>>>>>>>> a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your yap
>>>>>>>> and removing all doubt.
>>>>>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right about
>>>>>>> it than you are.
>>>>>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>>>>> His comments like:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
>>>>> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows
>>>>> Foundation Classes.
>>>>> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
>>>>> because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
>>>>> implications.
>>>>> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
>>>>> everything-to-everybody architecture. "
>>>> lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by the
>>>> above. having worked with all three from their inception, these
>>>> definitions are either wildly understated or wildy incorrect. take your
>>>> pick. if my explanation of each seems less correct/accurate than the
>>>> above...what can i say?
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with wiki's. I've also worked on them since their
>>> inception. And they are pretty accurate.
>>
>> so you're telling me you agree with his definition of DCOM (a patch work
>> add-on) and .net?
>
> Yep. DCOM was a patch-work addon when the internet because popular. But
> then Win95 was patchwork, also.

i suppose we'll disagree since DCOM has nothing to do with internet usage
*at all*. the ability to control and access the resources of another server
securely was addressed by DCOM (which is the objectified, programatic
equivalent to RPC's...which also have nothing to do with the internet).

it also has very little to do with win95, save that win95 can't do RPC...but
with the addition of DCOM, was able to work-around its own short-comings -
which was NOT IN THE LEAST why DCOM was created.

but, you define it as you like.

> Also, MS would love to see everyone drop Java, PHP, Perl and other
> languages and just use .NET. And they're doing everything they can to get
> people to do it.

that explains motives and has nothing to do with what .net is or does.

i suppose i expect more usefulness out of definitions of things than
sanders, and apparently you as well (not to be taken as a slight).

Re: com_dotnet

> Not at all. OK, on a Windows system MySQL support is supplied by
> php_mysql.dll. And if MySQL isn't installed, the DLL won't load and
> phpinfo() will show MySQL support isn't enabled.
>
> The MySQL interface is NOT compiled into PHP on the distributed Windows
> binaries - or you'd never be able to run PHP unless you had MySQL
> installed.

again, you brought up the mysql example. i'm keeping this generic and
modules like .net and others can certainly be compiled directly into php.

now to say that i have to have mysql (specifically) installed on my system
that runs php and enables php is rather odd since i should be able to
connect to any server running mysql if i provide the proper credentials,
etc.. for this specific mysql lib, you're saying the dependency is an
absolute must (that i have to have mysql installed on the same server though
i otherwise have NO intention of ever using it)? can you tell me you've
actually *done* this in order to prove it to yourself before? do you have a
documented reference to support this?

>> what i'm saying is that this exactly parallels ".net support enabled".
>> php does NOT do/provide any additional features to ensure that third
>> party applications are installed, nor should it. php either has the
>> extensions compiled in or loads them when executed. these
>> extensions/modules determine whether support is enabled/disabled which
>> has nothing to do with the existence of the actual third-party
>> application on a target system...the question pondered by the op.
>>
>
> Nope, it's just the opposite.

references please...i'm not just going to take you at your word...sorry.

>>>> while php may very well provide mysql libraries, it certainly has no
>>>> relationship to microsoft such that it would warrant providing the .net
>>>> framework especially given how bulky it is and the frequency at which
>>>> it is updated and outdated.
>>>>
>>> Check again. PHP does not supply mysql libraries any longer.
>>
>> again, you're missing the point. it used to as a module but now is
>> compiled in...which was not my point anyway, which i was careful to point
>> out when following the "by your argument" line of comparison. whether a
>> compiled feature of php or a loadable module, it is the code that
>> provided the support to use external tools such as .net and this support
>> is *completely* independent of whether that external tool is actually
>> installed on a target system.
>>
>
> No, it is not. It is a dll loaded dynamically at startup, if the php.ini
> file says to load it and the MySQL libraries are properly installed.

again, that may be the case with mysql but it is not the case with other
modules and extensions.

>>>>> PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But
>>>>> obviously, since the extension is experimental, they still have some
>>>>> bugs to work out.
>>>> yes, which is what i was trying to state...i just didn't go into the
>>>> 'experimental' part of it. if i need to use .net developed source in
>>>> php, i just compile it to a standard COM object and use php's COM
>>>> function to consume it. works for me.
>>> I just don't use OS-specific code. Works for me.
>>
>> i'm glad you've got that leeway. as for me, i build what my
>> paycheck-provider asks. ;^)
>
> So do I. :-)

i had to whip up a lib for credit card processing once. not only would the
boss-man not consider another venue, he insisted on using a user-control
addon that required a form to be instanciated...however, he wanted the the
user-control wrapped into a com object dll that had no forms! man i hated
that guy's thought processes. anyway, that required me to call kernel level
functions to create a window, coinitial the user-control, and expose it's
interfaces. all said and done, it was called via COM in php for online,
instant credit card processing and on his POS desktop systems. about 5
months after it had been in use, boss-man decided to use another vendor with
cheaper rates and newer software...at least that one was already a proper
dll.

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:Z76dnb4wSanKgHXbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>> news:u_idnTg1lo8NeHrbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>> news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>>>>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>>>>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>>>>>>>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something they
>>>>>>>>>> hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>>>>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on your
>>>>>>>>> part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the documentation
>>>>>>>>> simply states that:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this extension --
>>>>>>>>> including the names of its functions and anything else documented
>>>>>>>>> about this extension -- may change without notice in a future
>>>>>>>>> release of PHP. Use this extension at your own risk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from
>>>>>>>>> your keyboard?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas gauge
>>>>>>>>>> should be.
>>>>>>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are
>>>>>>>>> a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your yap
>>>>>>>>> and removing all doubt.
>>>>>>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right about
>>>>>>>> it than you are.
>>>>>>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>>>>>> His comments like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
>>>>>> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows
>>>>>> Foundation Classes.
>>>>>> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
>>>>>> because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
>>>>>> implications.
>>>>>> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
>>>>>> everything-to-everybody architecture. "
>>>>> lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by the
>>>>> above. having worked with all three from their inception, these
>>>>> definitions are either wildly understated or wildy incorrect. take your
>>>>> pick. if my explanation of each seems less correct/accurate than the
>>>>> above...what can i say?
>>>> Steve,
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with wiki's. I've also worked on them since their
>>>> inception. And they are pretty accurate.
>>> so you're telling me you agree with his definition of DCOM (a patch work
>>> add-on) and .net?
>> Yep. DCOM was a patch-work addon when the internet because popular. But
>> then Win95 was patchwork, also.
>
> i suppose we'll disagree since DCOM has nothing to do with internet usage
> *at all*. the ability to control and access the resources of another server
> securely was addressed by DCOM (which is the objectified, programatic
> equivalent to RPC's...which also have nothing to do with the internet).
>

No, but it operates over the TCP/IP protocol, just like the internet. It
was MS's first foray into network computing.

> it also has very little to do with win95, save that win95 can't do RPC...but
> with the addition of DCOM, was able to work-around its own short-comings -
> which was NOT IN THE LEAST why DCOM was created.
>

True, Win95 couldn't do RPC - but DCOM was their first try at it.

> but, you define it as you like.
>
>> Also, MS would love to see everyone drop Java, PHP, Perl and other
>> languages and just use .NET. And they're doing everything they can to get
>> people to do it.
>
> that explains motives and has nothing to do with what .net is or does.
>
> i suppose i expect more usefulness out of definitions of things than
> sanders, and apparently you as well (not to be taken as a slight).
>
>

No, it explains exactly what MS is trying to get the world to adopt.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
>> Not at all. OK, on a Windows system MySQL support is supplied by
>> php_mysql.dll. And if MySQL isn't installed, the DLL won't load and
>> phpinfo() will show MySQL support isn't enabled.
>>
>> The MySQL interface is NOT compiled into PHP on the distributed Windows
>> binaries - or you'd never be able to run PHP unless you had MySQL
>> installed.
>
> again, you brought up the mysql example. i'm keeping this generic and
> modules like .net and others can certainly be compiled directly into php.
>

Nope, I just corrected your misstatements about PHP and MySQL. It is
typical of the way PHP modules act. Other modules act the same way.

> now to say that i have to have mysql (specifically) installed on my system
> that runs php and enables php is rather odd since i should be able to
> connect to any server running mysql if i provide the proper credentials,
> etc.. for this specific mysql lib, you're saying the dependency is an
> absolute must (that i have to have mysql installed on the same server though
> i otherwise have NO intention of ever using it)? can you tell me you've
> actually *done* this in order to prove it to yourself before? do you have a
> documented reference to support this?
>

You need to have the MySQL client libraries installed on the system
running PHP - just like if it were MSSQL Oracle or any other module. So
yes, the dependency is an absolute must.

You need to learn how these modules work. It's not just PHP - the same
is true in C/C++, for instance.

>>> what i'm saying is that this exactly parallels ".net support enabled".
>>> php does NOT do/provide any additional features to ensure that third
>>> party applications are installed, nor should it. php either has the
>>> extensions compiled in or loads them when executed. these
>>> extensions/modules determine whether support is enabled/disabled which
>>> has nothing to do with the existence of the actual third-party
>>> application on a target system...the question pondered by the op.
>>>
>> Nope, it's just the opposite.
>
> references please...i'm not just going to take you at your word...sorry.
>

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn if you take my word for it or not.
Look it up yourself. I'm not going to bother to correct your
misconceptions. A hint - search this newsgroup for all the problems
people have had installing MySQL support when the client libraries
aren't in the path. Or MS SQL when the client libraries aren't
installed on the system.

>>>>> while php may very well provide mysql libraries, it certainly has no
>>>>> relationship to microsoft such that it would warrant providing the .net
>>>>> framework especially given how bulky it is and the frequency at which
>>>>> it is updated and outdated.
>>>>>
>>>> Check again. PHP does not supply mysql libraries any longer.
>>> again, you're missing the point. it used to as a module but now is
>>> compiled in...which was not my point anyway, which i was careful to point
>>> out when following the "by your argument" line of comparison. whether a
>>> compiled feature of php or a loadable module, it is the code that
>>> provided the support to use external tools such as .net and this support
>>> is *completely* independent of whether that external tool is actually
>>> installed on a target system.
>>>
>> No, it is not. It is a dll loaded dynamically at startup, if the php.ini
>> file says to load it and the MySQL libraries are properly installed.
>
> again, that may be the case with mysql but it is not the case with other
> modules and extensions.
>

That is the case with ANY extension which requires external support.

>>>>>> PHP cannot integrate with something which does not exist. But
>>>>>> obviously, since the extension is experimental, they still have some
>>>>>> bugs to work out.
>>>>> yes, which is what i was trying to state...i just didn't go into the
>>>>> 'experimental' part of it. if i need to use .net developed source in
>>>>> php, i just compile it to a standard COM object and use php's COM
>>>>> function to consume it. works for me.
>>>> I just don't use OS-specific code. Works for me.
>>> i'm glad you've got that leeway. as for me, i build what my
>>> paycheck-provider asks. ;^)
>> So do I. :-)
>
> i had to whip up a lib for credit card processing once. not only would the
> boss-man not consider another venue, he insisted on using a user-control
> addon that required a form to be instanciated...however, he wanted the the
> user-control wrapped into a com object dll that had no forms! man i hated
> that guy's thought processes. anyway, that required me to call kernel level
> functions to create a window, coinitial the user-control, and expose it's
> interfaces. all said and done, it was called via COM in php for online,
> instant credit card processing and on his POS desktop systems. about 5
> months after it had been in use, boss-man decided to use another vendor with
> cheaper rates and newer software...at least that one was already a proper
> dll.
>
>

Great. Now try to get it to work when the COM module you're calling
isn't installed on the system. Or the new vendor when you don't have
the DLL installed.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:L9ydnVtql5BCOnXbnZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:Z76dnb4wSanKgHXbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>> news:u_idnTg1lo8NeHrbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>>>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>>>>>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>>>>>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>>>>>>>>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something
>>>>>>>>>>> they hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>>>>>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on
>>>>>>>>>> your part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the
>>>>>>>>>> documentation simply states that:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this
>>>>>>>>>> extension -- including the names of its functions and anything
>>>>>>>>>> else documented about this extension -- may change without notice
>>>>>>>>>> in a future release of PHP. Use this extension at your own risk.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from
>>>>>>>>>> your keyboard?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas
>>>>>>>>>>> gauge should be.
>>>>>>>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you
>>>>>>>>>> are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your
>>>>>>>>>> yap and removing all doubt.
>>>>>>>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right
>>>>>>>>> about it than you are.
>>>>>>>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>>>>>>> His comments like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
>>>>>>> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows
>>>>>>> Foundation Classes.
>>>>>>> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
>>>>>>> because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
>>>>>>> implications.
>>>>>>> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
>>>>>>> everything-to-everybody architecture. "
>>>>>> lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by the
>>>>>> above. having worked with all three from their inception, these
>>>>>> definitions are either wildly understated or wildy incorrect. take
>>>>>> your pick. if my explanation of each seems less correct/accurate than
>>>>>> the above...what can i say?
>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing to do with wiki's. I've also worked on them since their
>>>>> inception. And they are pretty accurate.
>>>> so you're telling me you agree with his definition of DCOM (a patch
>>>> work add-on) and .net?
>>> Yep. DCOM was a patch-work addon when the internet because popular. But
>>> then Win95 was patchwork, also.
>>
>> i suppose we'll disagree since DCOM has nothing to do with internet usage
>> *at all*. the ability to control and access the resources of another
>> server securely was addressed by DCOM (which is the objectified,
>> programatic equivalent to RPC's...which also have nothing to do with the
>> internet).
>>
>
> No, but it operates over the TCP/IP protocol, just like the internet. It
> was MS's first foray into network computing.

chuckle...perhaps you mean something like their first foray into
cross-server resource utilization. ms dos would technically be ms' first
foray into network computing. and actually to be completely precise, OS2
would have been ms' first go at network computing since they bought dos with
that capability already in place. you're an ibm man, right? i'm sure you
appreciate that history.

>> it also has very little to do with win95, save that win95 can't do
>> RPC...but with the addition of DCOM, was able to work-around its own
>> short-comings - which was NOT IN THE LEAST why DCOM was created.
>>
>
> True, Win95 couldn't do RPC - but DCOM was their first try at it.

dcom had completly different aims than to try and simulate rpc capabilities
in win95. hint, dcom came out around the time of the first beta release of
win98...which means their committment to win95 started to shift from new
development and enhancements to plugging security whole and ironing out
other kinks. when ms brings on a new toy, they are wont to drop the old ones
regardless of whom it effects...look at vb classic. they dropped it like a
hot potato after the first service pack for vb.net. that's a lot of pissed
off companies and developers given the popularity of vb classic at the time.

i digress...the fact that the development of dcom gave win95 capabilities it
did not have before does NOT equate to that being the impetous for its
development. hell, dcom effected *every* winx version and how resources
could be used across servers.

finally, if you still hold to win95 being the reason dcom was developed,
then you may as well say the SAME THING for WMI because it does the exact
same thing as dcom and then some.

>> but, you define it as you like.
>>
>>> Also, MS would love to see everyone drop Java, PHP, Perl and other
>>> languages and just use .NET. And they're doing everything they can to
>>> get people to do it.
>>
>> that explains motives and has nothing to do with what .net is or does.
>>
>> i suppose i expect more usefulness out of definitions of things than
>> sanders, and apparently you as well (not to be taken as a slight).
>
> No, it explains exactly what MS is trying to get the world to adopt.

that very well may be, but stay on track. whatever it explains, it does NOT
do a thing for explaining what .net is or does...it just says they like it a
lot and want everyone else to too.

cheers

Re: com_dotnet

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:UOednTt_JMQuNHXbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>>> Not at all. OK, on a Windows system MySQL support is supplied by
>>> php_mysql.dll. And if MySQL isn't installed, the DLL won't load and
>>> phpinfo() will show MySQL support isn't enabled.
>>>
>>> The MySQL interface is NOT compiled into PHP on the distributed Windows
>>> binaries - or you'd never be able to run PHP unless you had MySQL
>>> installed.
>>
>> again, you brought up the mysql example. i'm keeping this generic and
>> modules like .net and others can certainly be compiled directly into php.
>>
>
> Nope, I just corrected your misstatements about PHP and MySQL. It is
> typical of the way PHP modules act. Other modules act the same way.

and other modules at the same time do NOT act the same way, but in the way i
described. since you won't get off the mysql specifics theme and refuse to
see my "misstatements" at the conceptual level i intended...let's talk about
ODBC and php. i can "enable" odbc in php. however i do that is beside the
point. that main thing to note is that the "enabling" doesn't require *ANY*
db to be installed...since there is NO *literal* ODBC database. odbc is a
protocol, not a database. so your point about having to have third party
applications installed for every lib/extension that may consume them carries
no weight. *SOME* extensions are protocols, some are functional resources,
and some are just type libraries. in the case of .net enabling, it is a set
of functional resources that php to use the .net framework. that does NOT
mean that phpinfo() would show different results when the same compiled
version of php gets put on a server with the .net framework and on one
without. it shows "enabled" in both cases.

try it. until then, you have an unqualified "Nope". after you do, as i have
done this evening, your "Nope" will turn to an "Oh...Ok, Ooops".

>> now to say that i have to have mysql (specifically) installed on my
>> system that runs php and enables php is rather odd since i should be able
>> to connect to any server running mysql if i provide the proper
>> credentials, etc.. for this specific mysql lib, you're saying the
>> dependency is an absolute must (that i have to have mysql installed on
>> the same server though i otherwise have NO intention of ever using it)?
>> can you tell me you've actually *done* this in order to prove it to
>> yourself before? do you have a documented reference to support this?
>>
>
> You need to have the MySQL client libraries installed on the system
> running PHP - just like if it were MSSQL Oracle or any other module. So
> yes, the dependency is an absolute must.

omg! you weren't even paying attention. the way in which php is compile or
whether or not modules exist IS NOT EVEN THE POINT!!! i already explained
that the "libraries" are indeed needed if the extension is not able to be
compiled into php!

read the OP. he wanted to know:

"And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where .net is NOT
installed."

are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing?!!! my point is that
ENABLING a feature in php has NOTHING to do with whether or not the TARGET
(.net framework in this case) is installed. i never disagreed with "client
libraries", in fact i specifically stated how php could include features
(compilation or run-time loading) and even states precisely that the
extension in question MUST exist in order to either compile it in or load at
run-time. did you miss that whole thread?


> You need to learn how these modules work. It's not just PHP - the same is
> true in C/C++, for instance.

i know how they do. it just seems you haven't even been on the same topic.
i'm talking about third-party applications and you're talking about
libraries that make it possible for php to use them.



> Great. Now try to get it to work when the COM module you're calling isn't
> installed on the system. Or the new vendor when you don't have the DLL
> installed.

Great. now try and follow a thread, see what was asked, and THEN judge the
answer. you're not even in the ball park as far as this topic is concerned.

am i going to hear back from you on this post? i'd be embarrassed to had i
done the same thing. but it takes a certain kind of person to step back from
such a defensive position as you've taken and say that, indeed, "i just
misunderstood what you were explaining".

we'll see.

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:L9ydnVtql5BCOnXbnZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>> news:Z76dnb4wSanKgHXbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>> news:u_idnTg1lo8NeHrbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It appears PHP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of files
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP folks
>>>>>>>>>>>> strangely note that this is just a place-holder for something
>>>>>>>>>>>> they hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation on
>>>>>>>>>>> your part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the
>>>>>>>>>>> documentation simply states that:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this
>>>>>>>>>>> extension -- including the names of its functions and anything
>>>>>>>>>>> else documented about this extension -- may change without notice
>>>>>>>>>>> in a future release of PHP. Use this extension at your own risk.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled from
>>>>>>>>>>> your keyboard?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas
>>>>>>>>>>>> gauge should be.
>>>>>>>>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you
>>>>>>>>>>> are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening your
>>>>>>>>>>> yap and removing all doubt.
>>>>>>>>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more right
>>>>>>>>>> about it than you are.
>>>>>>>>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>>>>>>>> His comments like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
>>>>>>>> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows
>>>>>>>> Foundation Classes.
>>>>>>>> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was added
>>>>>>>> because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain internet
>>>>>>>> implications.
>>>>>>>> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
>>>>>>>> everything-to-everybody architecture. "
>>>>>>> lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by the
>>>>>>> above. having worked with all three from their inception, these
>>>>>>> definitions are either wildly understated or wildy incorrect. take
>>>>>>> your pick. if my explanation of each seems less correct/accurate than
>>>>>>> the above...what can i say?
>>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing to do with wiki's. I've also worked on them since their
>>>>>> inception. And they are pretty accurate.
>>>>> so you're telling me you agree with his definition of DCOM (a patch
>>>>> work add-on) and .net?
>>>> Yep. DCOM was a patch-work addon when the internet because popular. But
>>>> then Win95 was patchwork, also.
>>> i suppose we'll disagree since DCOM has nothing to do with internet usage
>>> *at all*. the ability to control and access the resources of another
>>> server securely was addressed by DCOM (which is the objectified,
>>> programatic equivalent to RPC's...which also have nothing to do with the
>>> internet).
>>>
>> No, but it operates over the TCP/IP protocol, just like the internet. It
>> was MS's first foray into network computing.
>
> chuckle...perhaps you mean something like their first foray into
> cross-server resource utilization. ms dos would technically be ms' first
> foray into network computing. and actually to be completely precise, OS2
> would have been ms' first go at network computing since they bought dos with
> that capability already in place. you're an ibm man, right? i'm sure you
> appreciate that history.
>

Well, yes, MS-DOS did have a TCP/IP component eventually (after Novell
made a fortune on their Netware and MS finally saw the way things were
going). But it wasn't much. Telnet, ftp, gopher, finger... just the
basic stuff. Nothing for rpc.

Windows for Workgroups did add NETBIOS support, but that was an add-on
product to DOS. So technically, W4W was their first foray into network
computing, not DOS :-).

As for OS/2 - MS worked mainly on the core code - they didn't write any
of the networking code. That was all from IBM, sold as add-on products
until OS/2 3.0 or so. MS worked mainly on the presentation manager and
come of the kernel. But it was out of the OS/2 business as of 2.1 -
which is why OS/2 2.1 was smaller and faster than 2.0.

>>> it also has very little to do with win95, save that win95 can't do
>>> RPC...but with the addition of DCOM, was able to work-around its own
>>> short-comings - which was NOT IN THE LEAST why DCOM was created.
>>>
>> True, Win95 couldn't do RPC - but DCOM was their first try at it.
>
> dcom had completly different aims than to try and simulate rpc capabilities
> in win95. hint, dcom came out around the time of the first beta release of
> win98...which means their committment to win95 started to shift from new
> development and enhancements to plugging security whole and ironing out
> other kinks. when ms brings on a new toy, they are wont to drop the old ones
> regardless of whom it effects...look at vb classic. they dropped it like a
> hot potato after the first service pack for vb.net. that's a lot of pissed
> off companies and developers given the popularity of vb classic at the time.
>

I didn't mean they were trying to emulate rpc - but that they were
trying to do inter-system resource sharing. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.

As for W98 - that was a lot more than just plugging security holes and
other kinks. W95 was basically W4W with the W32 API's running on DOS,
sold as a single package. They just made W4W the default for the
display instead of a DOS prompt. W98 was pretty much a rewrite of the
kernel and a bunch of work on the rest of it.

> i digress...the fact that the development of dcom gave win95 capabilities it
> did not have before does NOT equate to that being the impetous for its
> development. hell, dcom effected *every* winx version and how resources
> could be used across servers.
>

Actually, didn't DCOM come out in W4W? Seems to me it did.

> finally, if you still hold to win95 being the reason dcom was developed,
> then you may as well say the SAME THING for WMI because it does the exact
> same thing as dcom and then some.
>

I never said W95 was the reason DCOM was developed. I just said that's
where it first showed up. MS developed DCOM because they saw people
wanted to network, and they saw Novell getting a lot of money for
Netware. Actually pretty astute on their part.

>>> but, you define it as you like.
>>>
>>>> Also, MS would love to see everyone drop Java, PHP, Perl and other
>>>> languages and just use .NET. And they're doing everything they can to
>>>> get people to do it.
>>> that explains motives and has nothing to do with what .net is or does.
>>>
>>> i suppose i expect more usefulness out of definitions of things than
>>> sanders, and apparently you as well (not to be taken as a slight).
>> No, it explains exactly what MS is trying to get the world to adopt.
>
> that very well may be, but stay on track. whatever it explains, it does NOT
> do a thing for explaining what .net is or does...it just says they like it a
> lot and want everyone else to too.
>
> cheers
>
>

Yes, they want everyone to buy into .net. Those who do will be
committed to the MS platform for a long time.

A perfect example. Right now I have a customer (a non-profit) running
ASP (VBScript) for their site. We have a VPS - but it has to be
Windows/IIS, and the VPS costs about twice what a Linux server would.
Plus it doesn't have all of the capabilities of PHP or Perl.

We could convert it to .NET, but that would be expensive and time
consuming. Rather, we'd like to convert it to PHP and switch to Linux
hosting. But that also is expensive and time consuming.

So right now they're locked into the more expensive hosting (which also
runs more slowly and has more problems) because the cost of conversion
would be several years worth of the price difference.

But as I'm making changes to the site, I am adding more PHP code and
getting rid of some of the VBScript. Eventually we'll have enough
changed that it's cost effective to convert.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:L9ydnVtql5BCOnXbnZ2dnUVZ_vLinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>> news:Z76dnb4wSanKgHXbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:u_idnTg1lo8NeHrbnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:VNqdnUb0dO53QnrbnZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:3_2dnRvfUIiaxXrbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MNHFi.2377$Sd4.1809@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim Carlock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..net is NOT installed. I'm baffled by this one. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears PHP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks for one specific file and it exists, PHP declares .net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled, but .net is actually at least a 50MB package of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which fill a few folders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall something from the docs in which the PHP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks strangely note that this is just a place-holder for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something they hope to have PHP doing in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>>> again, your recall is weak and with a little investigation
>>>>>>>>>>>> on your part, you could keep yourself from embarasment. the
>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation simply states that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>>>> This extension is EXPERIMENTAL. The behaviour of this
>>>>>>>>>>>> extension -- including the names of its functions and
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else documented about this extension -- may change
>>>>>>>>>>>> without notice in a future release of PHP. Use this
>>>>>>>>>>>> extension at your own risk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> now, does that sound *ANYTHING* like what you just dribbled
>>>>>>>>>>>> from your keyboard?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's kinda like building a car with a sticker where the gas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gauge should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>> more like an example of the twainian proverb:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is what the bulk of your posts consist of...opening
>>>>>>>>>>>> your yap and removing all doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>> You should take your own advice, Steve. Sanders is more
>>>>>>>>>>> right about it than you are.
>>>>>>>>>> i usually do. so, in what way(s) is this so?
>>>>>>>>> His comments like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Those are all Microsoft thingies.
>>>>>>>>> COM is the Component Object Model - a version of the Windows
>>>>>>>>> Foundation Classes.
>>>>>>>>> DCOM is distributed COM - a patchwork add-on of Win95 that was
>>>>>>>>> added because when 95 came out, MS had not considered certain
>>>>>>>>> internet implications.
>>>>>>>>> .NET is MS's latest attempt to build an all-in-one,
>>>>>>>>> everything-to-everybody architecture. "
>>>>>>>> lol. wiki is not entirely accurate as you know...and proven by
>>>>>>>> the above. having worked with all three from their inception,
>>>>>>>> these definitions are either wildly understated or wildy
>>>>>>>> incorrect. take your pick. if my explanation of each seems less
>>>>>>>> correct/accurate than the above...what can i say?
>>>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing to do with wiki's. I've also worked on them since their
>>>>>>> inception. And they are pretty accurate.
>>>>>> so you're telling me you agree with his definition of DCOM (a
>>>>>> patch work add-on) and .net?
>>>>> Yep. DCOM was a patch-work addon when the internet because
>>>>> popular. But then Win95 was patchwork, also.
>>>> i suppose we'll disagree since DCOM has nothing to do with internet
>>>> usage *at all*. the ability to control and access the resources of
>>>> another server securely was addressed by DCOM (which is the
>>>> objectified, programatic equivalent to RPC's...which also have
>>>> nothing to do with the internet).
>>>>
>>> No, but it operates over the TCP/IP protocol, just like the internet.
>>> It was MS's first foray into network computing.
>>
>> chuckle...perhaps you mean something like their first foray into
>> cross-server resource utilization. ms dos would technically be ms'
>> first foray into network computing. and actually to be completely
>> precise, OS2 would have been ms' first go at network computing since
>> they bought dos with that capability already in place. you're an ibm
>> man, right? i'm sure you appreciate that history.
>>
>
> Well, yes, MS-DOS did have a TCP/IP component eventually (after Novell
> made a fortune on their Netware and MS finally saw the way things were
> going). But it wasn't much. Telnet, ftp, gopher, finger... just the
> basic stuff. Nothing for rpc.
>
> Windows for Workgroups did add NETBIOS support, but that was an add-on
> product to DOS. So technically, W4W was their first foray into network
> computing, not DOS :-).
>
> As for OS/2 - MS worked mainly on the core code - they didn't write any
> of the networking code. That was all from IBM, sold as add-on products
> until OS/2 3.0 or so. MS worked mainly on the presentation manager and
> come of the kernel. But it was out of the OS/2 business as of 2.1 -
> which is why OS/2 2.1 was smaller and faster than 2.0.
>
>>>> it also has very little to do with win95, save that win95 can't do
>>>> RPC...but with the addition of DCOM, was able to work-around its own
>>>> short-comings - which was NOT IN THE LEAST why DCOM was created.
>>>>
>>> True, Win95 couldn't do RPC - but DCOM was their first try at it.
>>
>> dcom had completly different aims than to try and simulate rpc
>> capabilities in win95. hint, dcom came out around the time of the
>> first beta release of win98...which means their committment to win95
>> started to shift from new development and enhancements to plugging
>> security whole and ironing out other kinks. when ms brings on a new
>> toy, they are wont to drop the old ones regardless of whom it
>> effects...look at vb classic. they dropped it like a hot potato after
>> the first service pack for vb.net. that's a lot of pissed off
>> companies and developers given the popularity of vb classic at the time.
>>
>
> I didn't mean they were trying to emulate rpc - but that they were
> trying to do inter-system resource sharing. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
>
> As for W98 - that was a lot more than just plugging security holes and
> other kinks. W95 was basically W4W with the W32 API's running on DOS,
> sold as a single package. They just made W4W the default for the
> display instead of a DOS prompt. W98 was pretty much a rewrite of the
> kernel and a bunch of work on the rest of it.
>
>> i digress...the fact that the development of dcom gave win95
>> capabilities it did not have before does NOT equate to that being the
>> impetous for its development. hell, dcom effected *every* winx version
>> and how resources could be used across servers.
>>
>
> Actually, didn't DCOM come out in W4W? Seems to me it did.
>
>> finally, if you still hold to win95 being the reason dcom was
>> developed, then you may as well say the SAME THING for WMI because it
>> does the exact same thing as dcom and then some.
>>
>
> I never said W95 was the reason DCOM was developed. I just said that's
> where it first showed up. MS developed DCOM because they saw people
> wanted to network, and they saw Novell getting a lot of money for
> Netware. Actually pretty astute on their part.
>
>>>> but, you define it as you like.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, MS would love to see everyone drop Java, PHP, Perl and other
>>>>> languages and just use .NET. And they're doing everything they can
>>>>> to get people to do it.
>>>> that explains motives and has nothing to do with what .net is or does.
>>>>
>>>> i suppose i expect more usefulness out of definitions of things than
>>>> sanders, and apparently you as well (not to be taken as a slight).
>>> No, it explains exactly what MS is trying to get the world to adopt.
>>
>> that very well may be, but stay on track. whatever it explains, it
>> does NOT do a thing for explaining what .net is or does...it just says
>> they like it a lot and want everyone else to too.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>
> Yes, they want everyone to buy into .net. Those who do will be
> committed to the MS platform for a long time.
>
> A perfect example. Right now I have a customer (a non-profit) running
> ASP (VBScript) for their site. We have a VPS - but it has to be
> Windows/IIS, and the VPS costs about twice what a Linux server would.
> Plus it doesn't have all of the capabilities of PHP or Perl.
>
> We could convert it to .NET, but that would be expensive and time
> consuming. Rather, we'd like to convert it to PHP and switch to Linux
> hosting. But that also is expensive and time consuming.
>
> So right now they're locked into the more expensive hosting (which also
> runs more slowly and has more problems) because the cost of conversion
> would be several years worth of the price difference.
>
> But as I'm making changes to the site, I am adding more PHP code and
> getting rid of some of the VBScript. Eventually we'll have enough
> changed that it's cost effective to convert.
>

Hi Jerry,

I am not sure what is wrong, but I only see your postings in
comp.lang.php while it is clear you're having a conversation with more
people involved.
Hard to follow the discussion this way.

Is something screwed up at my side, or are you alone posting to
comp.lang.php for some reason?

Regards,
Erwin Moller

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:UOednTt_JMQuNHXbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>>> Not at all. OK, on a Windows system MySQL support is supplied by
>>>> php_mysql.dll. And if MySQL isn't installed, the DLL won't load and
>>>> phpinfo() will show MySQL support isn't enabled.
>>>>
>>>> The MySQL interface is NOT compiled into PHP on the distributed Windows
>>>> binaries - or you'd never be able to run PHP unless you had MySQL
>>>> installed.
>>> again, you brought up the mysql example. i'm keeping this generic and
>>> modules like .net and others can certainly be compiled directly into php.
>>>
>> Nope, I just corrected your misstatements about PHP and MySQL. It is
>> typical of the way PHP modules act. Other modules act the same way.
>
> and other modules at the same time do NOT act the same way, but in the way i
> described. since you won't get off the mysql specifics theme and refuse to
> see my "misstatements" at the conceptual level i intended...let's talk about
> ODBC and php. i can "enable" odbc in php. however i do that is beside the
> point. that main thing to note is that the "enabling" doesn't require *ANY*
> db to be installed...since there is NO *literal* ODBC database. odbc is a
> protocol, not a database. so your point about having to have third party
> applications installed for every lib/extension that may consume them carries
> no weight. *SOME* extensions are protocols, some are functional resources,
> and some are just type libraries. in the case of .net enabling, it is a set
> of functional resources that php to use the .net framework. that does NOT
> mean that phpinfo() would show different results when the same compiled
> version of php gets put on a server with the .net framework and on one
> without. it shows "enabled" in both cases.
>

I said modules which require external libraries - which .NET does. And
even protocols need the appropriate libraries installed. If that is not
so, specifically which modules are those?

> try it. until then, you have an unqualified "Nope". after you do, as i have
> done this evening, your "Nope" will turn to an "Oh...Ok, Ooops".
>

Show me exactly which ones act at hat way, please.

>>> now to say that i have to have mysql (specifically) installed on my
>>> system that runs php and enables php is rather odd since i should be able
>>> to connect to any server running mysql if i provide the proper
>>> credentials, etc.. for this specific mysql lib, you're saying the
>>> dependency is an absolute must (that i have to have mysql installed on
>>> the same server though i otherwise have NO intention of ever using it)?
>>> can you tell me you've actually *done* this in order to prove it to
>>> yourself before? do you have a documented reference to support this?
>>>
>> You need to have the MySQL client libraries installed on the system
>> running PHP - just like if it were MSSQL Oracle or any other module. So
>> yes, the dependency is an absolute must.
>
> omg! you weren't even paying attention. the way in which php is compile or
> whether or not modules exist IS NOT EVEN THE POINT!!! i already explained
> that the "libraries" are indeed needed if the extension is not able to be
> compiled into php!
>

Yes, it does. If you're going to compile the extension into PHP itself,
the libraries must be available at compile time, and when you run PHP,
or PHP won't load.

If you're going to compile something as an extension module, then those
libraries need to be present when you compile the extension and when you
load the extension.

> read the OP. he wanted to know:
>
> "And I'm wondering why PHP says .net support = enabled where .net is NOT
> installed."
>
> are you just arguing with me for the sake of arguing?!!! my point is that
> ENABLING a feature in php has NOTHING to do with whether or not the TARGET
> (.net framework in this case) is installed. i never disagreed with "client
> libraries", in fact i specifically stated how php could include features
> (compilation or run-time loading) and even states precisely that the
> extension in question MUST exist in order to either compile it in or load at
> run-time. did you miss that whole thread?
>

No, I'm saying the .NET support is different than any other module - PHP
says the support is installed, even when it isn't. But .NET support is
experimental, so there will be some bugs.

>
>> You need to learn how these modules work. It's not just PHP - the same is
>> true in C/C++, for instance.
>
> i know how they do. it just seems you haven't even been on the same topic.
> i'm talking about third-party applications and you're talking about
> libraries that make it possible for php to use them.
>

Anything not from ZEND is a third-party application. They can be
libraries or applications.

>
>
>> Great. Now try to get it to work when the COM module you're calling isn't
>> installed on the system. Or the new vendor when you don't have the DLL
>> installed.
>
> Great. now try and follow a thread, see what was asked, and THEN judge the
> answer. you're not even in the ball park as far as this topic is concerned.
>

I did. And you're still telling me other modules say their extensions
can be loaded and show up as enabled, even though the necessary
libraries aren't installed. Again, which ones are those?

> am i going to hear back from you on this post? i'd be embarrassed to had i
> done the same thing. but it takes a certain kind of person to step back from
> such a defensive position as you've taken and say that, indeed, "i just
> misunderstood what you were explaining".
>
> we'll see.
>
>

Then you should be embarrassed for your incorrect statements.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

> I did. And you're still telling me other modules say their extensions can
> be loaded and show up as enabled, even though the necessary libraries
> aren't installed. Again, which ones are those?
>
>> am i going to hear back from you on this post? i'd be embarrassed to had
>> i done the same thing. but it takes a certain kind of person to step back
>> from such a defensive position as you've taken and say that, indeed, "i
>> just misunderstood what you were explaining".
>>
>> we'll see.
>
> Then you should be embarrassed for your incorrect statements.

"incorrect" would be purely speculative given that i asked you to back up
your posit with either a documented reference or actually trying it. as it
is, i know for a fact that i can enable .net support in php by loading its
corresponding php .net extension library (.dll) at run-time yet not have the
actual ms .net framework installed. you say it's a bug...i say "whatever".

as it is, i still think you are talking apples when the rest of us are
talking oranges. but, i'm done discussing this.

Re: com_dotnet

Erwin Moller wrote:

>
> Hi Jerry,
>
> I am not sure what is wrong, but I only see your postings in
> comp.lang.php while it is clear you're having a conversation with more
> people involved.
> Hard to follow the discussion this way.
>
> Is something screwed up at my side, or are you alone posting to
> comp.lang.php for some reason?
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller

Hi, Erwin,

No, I'm talking to Steve. Looks like you or your news server is
filtering him out.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

Steve wrote:
>
>
>> I did. And you're still telling me other modules say their extensions can
>> be loaded and show up as enabled, even though the necessary libraries
>> aren't installed. Again, which ones are those?
>>
>>> am i going to hear back from you on this post? i'd be embarrassed to had
>>> i done the same thing. but it takes a certain kind of person to step back
>>> from such a defensive position as you've taken and say that, indeed, "i
>>> just misunderstood what you were explaining".
>>>
>>> we'll see.
>> Then you should be embarrassed for your incorrect statements.
>
> "incorrect" would be purely speculative given that i asked you to back up
> your posit with either a documented reference or actually trying it. as it
> is, i know for a fact that i can enable .net support in php by loading its
> corresponding php .net extension library (.dll) at run-time yet not have the
> actual ms .net framework installed. you say it's a bug...i say "whatever".
>
> as it is, i still think you are talking apples when the rest of us are
> talking oranges. but, i'm done discussing this.
>
>

No, you said there are other extensions which do the same thing. There
are not.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Actually, didn't DCOM come out in W4W? Seems to me it did.

No, it began with Win95 - in an "extras" folder, or somesuch.
Win95 was the "MS doesn't get networking" release of Win32.
Prior to that, it was just something they were tinkering with.
.... acutally, that's what it was afterwards, too, wasn't it? :)

I recently saw a guest lecture series on the Paul Allen network (U-Dub)
in which they interview Microsofties. It was kinda funny watching this
old guy talk about the headaches he had as a mucky-muck - trying to
pretend that the engineering form WFC/COM/Com+/DCOM and several others
was really in synch with the marketing... the poor guy didn't even
believe it himself.

But that's what ya gotta do when your a manager of cubicle rats.


> So right now they're locked into the more expensive hosting (which also
> runs more slowly and has more problems) because the cost of conversion
> would be several years worth of the price difference.

Hey, that's like the War Against Iraq. The original benefits didn't pan
out, but the cost of upgrading to peacetime is considered too expensive.

Re: com_dotnet

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Actually, didn't DCOM come out in W4W? Seems to me it did.
>
> No, it began with Win95 - in an "extras" folder, or somesuch.
> Win95 was the "MS doesn't get networking" release of Win32.
> Prior to that, it was just something they were tinkering with.
> ... acutally, that's what it was afterwards, too, wasn't it? :)
>
> I recently saw a guest lecture series on the Paul Allen network (U-Dub)
> in which they interview Microsofties. It was kinda funny watching this
> old guy talk about the headaches he had as a mucky-muck - trying to
> pretend that the engineering form WFC/COM/Com+/DCOM and several others
> was really in synch with the marketing... the poor guy didn't even
> believe it himself.
>
> But that's what ya gotta do when your a manager of cubicle rats.
>
>
>> So right now they're locked into the more expensive hosting (which
>> also runs more slowly and has more problems) because the cost of
>> conversion would be several years worth of the price difference.
>
> Hey, that's like the War Against Iraq. The original benefits didn't pan
> out, but the cost of upgrading to peacetime is considered too expensive.

The difference is - if we weren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, we'd be
fighting them here.

Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa. And they want to do it
again. The only thing keeping them from doing it is we're taking their
havens away from them.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> The difference is - if we weren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, we'd be
> fighting them here.

That's what the entertainers and televangelists say.



> Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa.

What an idiot.

Re: com_dotnet

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa. And they want to do it
> again. The only thing keeping them from doing it is we're taking their
> havens away from them.

I'm sorry.
Once just isn't enough.
I gotta say it again.
What an idiot!

BT

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> The difference is - if we weren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, we'd be
>> fighting them here.
>
> That's what the entertainers and televangelists say.
>
>
>
>> Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa.
>
> What an idiot.

Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:

1968 - Bobby Kennedy assassinated
1972 - Munich Olympics, 11 Israeli athletes murdered
1979 - US Embassy in Tehran taken over and hostages held for 444 days
1980's - Multiple Americans in Lebanon kidnapped
1983 - Marine Corps barracks in Beirut bombed
1985 - Cruise ship Achille Lauro hijacked and a 70 year old American
thrown overboard in his wheelchair
1985 - TWA flight 847 hijacked in Athens and a U.S. Navy diver killed
1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 bombed
1993 - First bombing of the World Trade Center
1998 - US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed
2001 - 4 airliners hijacked, killing over 3,000 people
2002 - Reporter Daniel Pearl kidnapped and murdered

Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists have
vowed to destroy our civilization.

I have nothing against most Muslims. They are only interested in living
in peace. But there are a few who have twisted their religion to meet
their own ends. And these are the problems.

Get your head out of your ass, Sanders. You should be glad we finally
have a President with the balls to stand up to them. If we would have
had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.

And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas, you
can be assured they would be here. Or maybe you want to see IED's along
the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times Square.
Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and our
civilians killed.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:eSlGi.2662$ZA5.2264@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Remember - they attacked us, not vice versa. And they want to do it
>> again. The only thing keeping them from doing it is we're taking their
>> havens away from them.
>
> I'm sorry.
> Once just isn't enough.
> I gotta say it again.
> What an idiot!

yes, sanders, you certainly are.

where'd my killfile go...oh, there it is.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas, you
> can be assured they would be here. Or maybe you want to see IED's along
> the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times Square.
> Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and our
> civilians killed.

We didn't go after them in Iraq.
We lured them into Iraq.
The Iraqis did not deserve that.
If we were to *go after* them, we would be invading Pakistan.

Where you go wrong here is in taking the Abramoff Republicans' word of
honor about what they're up to. They are not honorable people.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Or maybe you want to see IED's along
> the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times Square.
> Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and our
> civilians killed.

We've already had a lot of that.
In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Or maybe you want to see IED's along the roads. Maybe you'd like to
>> see suicide bombers in Times Square. Maybe you'd like to see our
>> bridges and buildings blown up and our civilians killed.
>
> We've already had a lot of that.
> In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.
>
>

Yea, right. Name EVEN ONE.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas,
>> you can be assured they would be here. Or maybe you want to see IED's
>> along the roads. Maybe you'd like to see suicide bombers in Times
>> Square. Maybe you'd like to see our bridges and buildings blown up and
>> our civilians killed.
>
> We didn't go after them in Iraq.
> We lured them into Iraq.

ROFLMAO! Listing to "Billary" again? And actually eating that shit?
Saddam was one of the worst terrorists in the world. He killed many
more people than bin Laden did.

Your head is further up your ass than I thought.

> The Iraqis did not deserve that.
> If we were to *go after* them, we would be invading Pakistan.
>

At least Pakistan is working WITH us in the war on terror.

> Where you go wrong here is in taking the Abramoff Republicans' word of
> honor about what they're up to. They are not honorable people.

Where you are going wrong is you're listening to those who are
supporting the terrorists for their own political purposes.

They depend in the naivety (or stupidity - take your pick) of people
like you to stay in power.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: com_dotnet

Erwin Moller wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote ...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote ...
>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote ...
>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:

[back-and-forth snipped]

> Hi Jerry,
>
> I am not sure what is wrong, but I only see your postings in
> comp.lang.php while it is clear you're having a conversation with more
> people involved.
> Hard to follow the discussion this way.
>
> Is something screwed up at my side, or are you alone posting to
> comp.lang.php for some reason?

It's not just you; I can't see Steve's posts either on news.bluewin.ch
(except for , which came later). But over
on news.individual.net I see what seem to be all his posts, so it's not
just Jerry talking to himself or an imaginary friend.


--
John

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:
>[...]

How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?

What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?

>Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists have
>vowed to destroy our civilization.

There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I don't
support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.

Some people just get what they deserve. The only problem and real
tragedy is: It's always the little guy from the streets, the usual
civilian, who has to pay the biggest price for the government's
mistakes, for their egoism and arrogance. It always hits the innocent,
never the real guilty.

>I have nothing against most Muslims. They are only interested in living
>in peace. But there are a few who have twisted their religion to meet
>their own ends. And these are the problems.
>
>Get your head out of your ass, Sanders. You should be glad we finally
>have a President with the balls to stand up to them.

Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.

>If we would have
>had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.

Correct. It could be even worse.

>And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas, you
>can be assured they would be here.

The only reason to invade Iraq was the oil. When was the war finished
"officially"? What's the situation now? Worse than ever.

But what does this all have to do with PHP? Bush wouldn't even know how
to spell it.

A curious side note: Our biggest telco "Deutsche Telekom" is known for
ruthlessly protecting their "intellectual properties" and tradamarks,
suing everyone who even thinks about using something colored magenta
(their brand color) or using anything that starts with "T-", because of
their brand names T-Com, T-Mobile, T-Systems etc. They grab all domain
names with "t-" at the beginning - they even own "t-errorist.de" ...

Micha

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

As a programmer, you might be exptected to
associate these events in a more logical way.

Sure, Saddam was a bad guy.
And yes, we were attacked by muslim extremists.
But Saddam was not the only bad guy in the
world, and was not in cahoots with Al Queda.
He did not attack us. There was no Al Queda in
Iraq until after the war started.

We had a golden opportunity to kick ass in Afganistan,
rebuild a country and make some allies. But we scewed
it up bigtime. We gave Osama his best christmas present
possible: the world's greatest recruiting tool,
wrapped in an impossible-to-win civil war.

Bush is a moron. The only remaining excuse for
starting this war (they've changed motivations a
half a dozen times now) is nation building. By
creating a land-of-milk-and-honey democracy in
Iraq, we will indirectly defeat Al Queda. That's
nation building, which Bush promised we would not do.

And it's a building construction project with little
hope of success. We might be stuck with it now,
whether we like it or not. But it's important to remember
the fools who got us into this mess in the first place.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:
>> [...]
>
> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>

How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day by
the terrorists.

> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>

We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.

>> Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists have
>> vowed to destroy our civilization.
>
> There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I don't
> support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.
>

Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
that means you support terrorism.

> Some people just get what they deserve. The only problem and real
> tragedy is: It's always the little guy from the streets, the usual
> civilian, who has to pay the biggest price for the government's
> mistakes, for their egoism and arrogance. It always hits the innocent,
> never the real guilty.
>

Yea, right.

>> I have nothing against most Muslims. They are only interested in living
>> in peace. But there are a few who have twisted their religion to meet
>> their own ends. And these are the problems.
>>
>> Get your head out of your ass, Sanders. You should be glad we finally
>> have a President with the balls to stand up to them.
>
> Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
> cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.
>

ROFLMAO! We finally have a President with enough balls to stand up to
the terrorists. The previous one sure didn't.

>> If we would have
>> had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.
>
> Correct. It could be even worse.
>

Nope, it would be much better.

>> And if we didn't go after them in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas, you
>> can be assured they would be here.
>
> The only reason to invade Iraq was the oil. When was the war finished
> "officially"? What's the situation now? Worse than ever.
>

You really believe that, huh? It was NOTHING about oil. Or, maybe you
can prove it.

> But what does this all have to do with PHP? Bush wouldn't even know how
> to spell it.
>
> A curious side note: Our biggest telco "Deutsche Telekom" is known for
> ruthlessly protecting their "intellectual properties" and tradamarks,
> suing everyone who even thinks about using something colored magenta
> (their brand color) or using anything that starts with "T-", because of
> their brand names T-Com, T-Mobile, T-Systems etc. They grab all domain
> names with "t-" at the beginning - they even own "t-errorist.de" ...
>
> Micha

So?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

ay beecee wrote:
> As a programmer, you might be exptected to
> associate these events in a more logical way.
>
> Sure, Saddam was a bad guy.
> And yes, we were attacked by muslim extremists.
> But Saddam was not the only bad guy in the
> world, and was not in cahoots with Al Queda.
> He did not attack us. There was no Al Queda in
> Iraq until after the war started.
>

Yep, and every major intelligence agency in the world though Saddam had
WMD's - not just the U.S. and Britain, but Russia, France, Germany,
Japan... And that he was not only going to use them against his own
people, he was going to provide them to terrorists to destroy the
western world. He hated us as much as Al Queda does.

> We had a golden opportunity to kick ass in Afganistan,
> rebuild a country and make some allies. But we scewed
> it up bigtime. We gave Osama his best christmas present
> possible: the world's greatest recruiting tool,
> wrapped in an impossible-to-win civil war.
>

Sure, and we did it. We didn't screw it up. We got rid of the Taliban
(something which came about because the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan
without completing the job) and got a much better government installed.

Sure, there are still some pockets of resistance - you can expect that
in a country as remote and rugged as Afghanistan, where warlords are
used to not having to answer to anyone, and have been attacking each
other for centuries. But overall it's much more peaceful than before.

> Bush is a moron. The only remaining excuse for
> starting this war (they've changed motivations a
> half a dozen times now) is nation building. By
> creating a land-of-milk-and-honey democracy in
> Iraq, we will indirectly defeat Al Queda. That's
> nation building, which Bush promised we would not do.
>

Bush finally said "Enough is Enough!". And after defeating a mass
murderer, it's our responsibility to help the people of Iraq rebuild.

Note I said "Help the people of Iraq rebuild". That's just what we're
doing. We're not installing a puppet government. And by taking yet
another haven away from the terrorists, we are defeating them.

And yes, the motivation has changed. I disagree. Rather, the objective
has changed. And that's normal. When you accomplish one objective, you
look at the next one.

> And it's a building construction project with little
> hope of success. We might be stuck with it now,
> whether we like it or not. But it's important to remember
> the fools who got us into this mess in the first place.
>
>

The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:
>>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some
>>> reminders:
>>> [...]
>> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
>> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
>> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
>> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>>
>
> How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day by
> the terrorists.

Which entirely depends on who you call 'terrorists'. It's become a buzz
word to justify a lot of actions that would otherwise not condoned. The
confederates would have called the yanks terrorists and vice-versa. Wether
you agree or disagree with a governments actions, always be very sceptical
about their propaganda.

>> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>
> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.

And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto you
untill the bubble bursts :).

>>> Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists
>>> have vowed to destroy our civilization.
>> There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I
>> don't
>> support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.
>>
>
> Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
> that means you support terrorism.

That old argument is flawed in so many ways it doesn't even justify an
answer.

But this is getting way to offtopic for me....
--
Rik Wasmus

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:iPCdncw7C8gBX3fbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com...
> The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.

I guess that statement just about sums up your level of naivete of world
events.

Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.

Yep, like you were succeeding in Vietnam.
You know the song "Deja Vu" by John Fogerty?

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/john_fogerty/deja_vu_all_o ver_again.html

Micha

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:
>> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>>
>>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:
>>> [...]
>>
>> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
>> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
>> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
>> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>
>How many innocent civilians?

Not many. Just some millions. Nothing special.

>Far fewer than those killed every day by
>the terrorists.

Sure.

>> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>
>We've made it safer.

With war. Sure.

> Just like we did in WW II.

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely safe after it was all over.

>> Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
>> cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.
>
>ROFLMAO! We finally have a President with enough balls to stand up to
>the terrorists.

Elected by courts, not by the people. Started at least two new wars.
Tries to restrict even _our_ European civil rights. Spits on freedom and
personal rights. Failed to support his own people during natural
disasters, at the same time ignores or even suppresses environmental
protection issues. And many more ...

Wow, what a president. You can be really proud of him.

>>> If we would have
>>> had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.
>>
>> Correct. It could be even worse.
>
>Nope, it would be much better.

You mean then the US would even more rule the world than they do now.
Maybe they would already have taken over and "freed" old Europe?

>> The only reason to invade Iraq was the oil. When was the war finished
>> "officially"? What's the situation now? Worse than ever.
>>
>
>You really believe that, huh? It was NOTHING about oil.

Of course it was all just about a little ugly dictator and his WMD toys.
But OK, oil was not the _only_ reason.

>Or, maybe you
>can prove it.

You can find enough resources in the web if you _want_ to find them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

And before you laugh at Wikipedia or deny their credibility - there are
more than 150 references for all the claims and statements made in that
article. "Oil" is a major section in it - and it is proved.

I wonder if you really mean what you say or if you're just trolling and
stress testing our irony detectors.

Micha

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.
>

.......and a cow jumped over the moon.
and widespread use of global variables makes debugging code easier
and...

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Rik Wasmus wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>>>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some
>>>> reminders:
>>>> [...]
>>> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
>>> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
>>> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
>>> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>>>
>>
>> How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day by
>> the terrorists.
>
> Which entirely depends on who you call 'terrorists'. It's become a buzz
> word to justify a lot of actions that would otherwise not condoned. The
> confederates would have called the yanks terrorists and vice-versa.
> Wether you agree or disagree with a governments actions, always be very
> sceptical about their propaganda.
>

Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
non-combatants, especially civilians. Those taken against the military,
like the confederates, and yanks, would not be terrorists.

Neither would those fighting the British during the Revolutionary war -
although I think you could call the Boston Tea Party a "terrorist act".

>>> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>>
>> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.
>
> And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto you
> untill the bubble bursts :).
>

Yea, and we love every minute of it!

>>>> Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists
>>>> have vowed to destroy our civilization.
>>> There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I
>>> don't
>>> support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.
>>>
>>
>> Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
>> that means you support terrorism.
>
> That old argument is flawed in so many ways it doesn't even justify an
> answer.
>
> But this is getting way to offtopic for me....

No, I say that because he is supporting those who are helping the
terrorists - politically, if no other way.

Those who argue that we need to get out if Iraq before the job is done
are doing just what that terrorists want them to do. They're either too
stupid to realize that, or consciously supporting terrorists. Which is it?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>>> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>>>
>>>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:
>>>> [...]
>>> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
>>> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
>>> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
>>> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>> How many innocent civilians?
>
> Not many. Just some millions. Nothing special.
>

Yes? And you have some proof of that? Or are you just talking out your
ass? I suspect the latter.

>> Far fewer than those killed every day by
>> the terrorists.
>
> Sure.
>
>>> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>> We've made it safer.
>
> With war. Sure.
>
>> Just like we did in WW II.
>
> Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely safe after it was all over.
>

Yep, we kicked your buts but good. And the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki saved lives. Estimates were to invade the Japanese homeland
would have cost over 1M lives on each side.

>>> Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
>>> cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.
>> ROFLMAO! We finally have a President with enough balls to stand up to
>> the terrorists.
>
> Elected by courts, not by the people. Started at least two new wars.
> Tries to restrict even _our_ European civil rights. Spits on freedom and
> personal rights. Failed to support his own people during natural
> disasters, at the same time ignores or even suppresses environmental
> protection issues. And many more ...
>

Sorry, you're wrong again. Every recount, even those taken by the NY
Times and CNN after the election showed that Bush won Florida in 2000.
And he beat Kerry's butt in 2004.

Try again - with some real facts.

And he isn't doing a thing to _your_ European civil rights. And all the
rest of your statements are full of even more crap.

I really suggest you get some facts before you pull your head out of
your ass again.

> Wow, what a president. You can be really proud of him.
>

You're damn right I'm proud of him.

>>>> If we would have
>>>> had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.
>>> Correct. It could be even worse.
>> Nope, it would be much better.
>
> You mean then the US would even more rule the world than they do now.
> Maybe they would already have taken over and "freed" old Europe?
>

We rule 50 states and a half dozen territories. That's it. Not Europe,
not Iraq, no place else.

>>> The only reason to invade Iraq was the oil. When was the war finished
>>> "officially"? What's the situation now? Worse than ever.
>>>
>> You really believe that, huh? It was NOTHING about oil.
>
> Of course it was all just about a little ugly dictator and his WMD toys.
> But OK, oil was not the _only_ reason.
>

Nope, oil wasn't even part of it. Your ass is talking again.

>> Or, maybe you
>> can prove it.
>
> You can find enough resources in the web if you _want_ to find them.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
>

And you think that's the truth? ROFLMAO. It's ONE PERSON'S (or maybe a
few people's) opinion.

I could write an article in wikipedia saying Michael Fesser is a horses
ass. It would have more creditability that what you're pointing out.

But I forget - you believe everything you read on the internet.

> And before you laugh at Wikipedia or deny their credibility - there are
> more than 150 references for all the claims and statements made in that
> article. "Oil" is a major section in it - and it is proved.
>

Yep, and how "accurate" are those references? Most are other websites
with just as little credibility.

> I wonder if you really mean what you say or if you're just trolling and
> stress testing our irony detectors.
>
> Micha

As Lenin once said - "Repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth".
Well, your lies are not going to become the truth.

And hey - I didn't bring up the topic. And no one asked you to stick
your fat ass in here.

If there's anyone who's a troll, it's you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Shelly wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:iPCdncw7C8gBX3fbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.
>
> I guess that statement just about sums up your level of naivete of world
> events.
>
> Shelly
>
>

Yep. You just watch.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.
>
> Yep, like you were succeeding in Vietnam.
> You know the song "Deja Vu" by John Fogerty?
>
> http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/john_fogerty/deja_vu_all_o ver_again.html
>
> Micha

Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I suggest
you go back and study your history.

Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.

Crawl back in your hole, troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

ay beecee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.
>>
>
> ......and a cow jumped over the moon.
> and widespread use of global variables makes debugging code easier
> and...

Just watch.

They already have a democratically elected government. Peace doesn't
come overnight, but we're getting there.

Heck - it took over 30 years after the American Revolution for our
country to settle down. No one in their right mind expects Iraq to do
it overnight.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:52:49 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
>> wrote:
>>>>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some
>>>>> reminders:
>>>>> [...]
>>>> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
>>>> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
>>>> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and
>>>> poverty
>>>> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day by
>>> the terrorists.
>> Which entirely depends on who you call 'terrorists'. It's become a
>> buzz word to justify a lot of actions that would otherwise not
>> condoned. The confederates would have called the yanks terrorists and
>> vice-versa. Wether you agree or disagree with a governments actions,
>> always be very sceptical about their propaganda.
>>
>
> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
> non-combatants, especially civilians.

And the use of more and more 'smart weapons' (which are everything but)
has meant almost every military action of the united states could be
classified as terrorist acts. It's sementantics, I grant you. But the word
'terrorism' and everything related has been abused to many times to hold
any kind of justification. Every fighter with no or a not acknowledged
government has been called a terrorist, allthough some independance
struggles (like the Kurds for instance) seem to me entirely justified.

> Those taken against the military, like the confederates, and yanks,
> would not be terrorists.

There might be a language issue here. The definition here would be "those
who commit violant acts for political gain". (Which would mean almost
every government in the world is a terrorist government incidentally :P)
With todays weaponry, civil casualties always turn out very high.

>>>> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>>>
>>> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.
>> And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto
>> you untill the bubble bursts :).
> Yea, and we love every minute of it!

Don't get me wrong, I love the consuming, we're just more debt-aware for
some reason. The mere existance of credit cards and their huge interest
rates still baffles me.

>>>>> Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists
>>>>> have vowed to destroy our civilization.
>>>> There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I
>>>> don't
>>>> support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
>>> that means you support terrorism.
>> That old argument is flawed in so many ways it doesn't even justify an
>> answer.
>> But this is getting way to offtopic for me....
>
> No, I say that because he is supporting those who are helping the
> terrorists - politically, if no other way.

I see no support whatsoever here. It's the old argument 'if you are not
with us you are against us', which is and has always been a flawed
argument. A disagreement with no interference is perfectly possible.
Actually, it's the way most people and governments disagree: some moaning
without action.

> Those who argue that we need to get out if Iraq before the job is done
> are doing just what that terrorists want them to do. They're either too
> stupid to realize that, or consciously supporting terrorists. Which is
> it?

Well, you're committed to Iraq now. I was against it from the start, but
the moment the US decided to invade it they made a commitment to leave it
socially at least as good as it was, preferably better. In Africa the US
has a history of fast military actions, and pulling out before anything
real was accomplished. I certainly hope that allthough the process is
going to be quite long an painfull, they'll ride this one out to the end.
--
Rik Wasmus

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Rik Wasmus wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:52:49 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some
>>>>>> reminders:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
>>>>> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
>>>>> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and
>>>>> poverty
>>>>> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day
>>>> by the terrorists.
>>> Which entirely depends on who you call 'terrorists'. It's become a
>>> buzz word to justify a lot of actions that would otherwise not
>>> condoned. The confederates would have called the yanks terrorists and
>>> vice-versa. Wether you agree or disagree with a governments actions,
>>> always be very sceptical about their propaganda.
>>>
>>
>> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
>> non-combatants, especially civilians.
>
> And the use of more and more 'smart weapons' (which are everything but)
> has meant almost every military action of the united states could be
> classified as terrorist acts. It's sementantics, I grant you. But the
> word 'terrorism' and everything related has been abused to many times to
> hold any kind of justification. Every fighter with no or a not
> acknowledged government has been called a terrorist, allthough some
> independance struggles (like the Kurds for instance) seem to me entirely
> justified.
>

Yes, actions against innocent civilians are terrorist acts. Actions of
a military against the U.S. military are not.

Actions by non-military personnel against military personnel seems to be
a gray area - some people call them acts of terrorism, some don't.

But I'm more referring to the suicide bombers blowing themselves up in
marketplaces full of civilians, flying planes into buildings and the
like - not attacks against our military.

>> Those taken against the military, like the confederates, and yanks,
>> would not be terrorists.
>
> There might be a language issue here. The definition here would be
> "those who commit violant acts for political gain". (Which would mean
> almost every government in the world is a terrorist government
> incidentally :P) With todays weaponry, civil casualties always turn out
> very high.
>

No, I consider it more on the order of committing violent acts with the
intention of causing the death, injury, etc. of innocent civilians.
With that in mind, neither the yanks nor the rebs were terrorists.
Germany and Japan were not terrorists. Timothy McVay was a terrorist.

>>>>> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>>>>
>>>> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.
>>> And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto
>>> you untill the bubble bursts :).
>> Yea, and we love every minute of it!
>
> Don't get me wrong, I love the consuming, we're just more debt-aware for
> some reason. The mere existance of credit cards and their huge interest
> rates still baffles me.
>

Yep, I do understand that point! Fortunately we're able to keep ours
pretty well paid off. :-)

Got a little on one right now only because I had an unexpected $2K car
repair bill last month :-(.

>>>>>> Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists
>>>>>> have vowed to destroy our civilization.
>>>>> There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
>>>> that means you support terrorism.
>>> That old argument is flawed in so many ways it doesn't even justify
>>> an answer.
>>> But this is getting way to offtopic for me....
>>
>> No, I say that because he is supporting those who are helping the
>> terrorists - politically, if no other way.
>
> I see no support whatsoever here. It's the old argument 'if you are not
> with us you are against us', which is and has always been a flawed
> argument. A disagreement with no interference is perfectly possible.
> Actually, it's the way most people and governments disagree: some
> moaning without action.
>

No, he's calling Bush a terrorist, saying we shouldn't be in Iraq...
Hmmm... exactly the same things bin Laden is saying. When you're
agreeing with someone so much, that's supporting them - indirectly, if
not directly.

>> Those who argue that we need to get out if Iraq before the job is done
>> are doing just what that terrorists want them to do. They're either
>> too stupid to realize that, or consciously supporting terrorists.
>> Which is it?
>
> Well, you're committed to Iraq now. I was against it from the start, but
> the moment the US decided to invade it they made a commitment to leave
> it socially at least as good as it was, preferably better. In Africa the
> US has a history of fast military actions, and pulling out before
> anything real was accomplished. I certainly hope that allthough the
> process is going to be quite long an painfull, they'll ride this one out
> to the end.

Yep, the previous administration didn't have the balls to stick around.
As soon as there was the slightest scent of an action becoming
unpopular, he would pull us out - to hell with the locals.

And that's what emboldened the terrorists - they didn't think we'd take
any real action against them, because they had done so many other things
in the past - and we never did anything.

They found out we now have a President who was interested in more than
his interns. And this one has real balls.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>>> Or maybe you want to see IED's along the roads. Maybe you'd like to
>>> see suicide bombers in Times Square. Maybe you'd like to see our
>>> bridges and buildings blown up and our civilians killed.
>>
>> We've already had a lot of that.
>> In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.
>
> Yea, right. Name EVEN ONE.

Oh, gosh - you got me. I'm busted. You're right.

Ultra-right wing, White Militant Christians have always been men among
men; the ones to look to for spiritual guidance and heroic virtue.

I doff my Yamulkah to ya on that one.

Sheesh!

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Rik Wasmus wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle

>> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.
>
> And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto you
> untill the bubble bursts :).

Perhaps the US should change it's slogan from "United We Stand" to "Do
you want fries with that?".

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
> non-combatants, especially civilians.

And when a squad of US soldiers rapes a girl and murders her family,
then sets fire to the house and threatens the neighbors - that's
"nation-building".

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I suggest
> you go back and study your history.
>
> Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.
> Crawl back in your hole, troll.

I've noticed that the low-lifes who behaved so poorly during that
illegal war are the same ones who insist the Iraqis must be slaughtered
as well.

I just thank GOD y'all are a dying breed, and that your leaders are
being tried and convicted for what they do.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:

> Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
> cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.

FULL ACK

So long, Ulf

--
_,
_(_p> Ulf [Kado] Kadner
\<_)
^^

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>>>> Or maybe you want to see IED's along the roads. Maybe you'd like to
>>>> see suicide bombers in Times Square. Maybe you'd like to see our
>>>> bridges and buildings blown up and our civilians killed.
>>>
>>> We've already had a lot of that.
>>> In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.
>>
>> Yea, right. Name EVEN ONE.
>
> Oh, gosh - you got me. I'm busted. You're right.
>
> Ultra-right wing, White Militant Christians have always been men among
> men; the ones to look to for spiritual guidance and heroic virtue.
>
> I doff my Yamulkah to ya on that one.
>
> Sheesh!

ROFLMAO! You make an outrageous claim, then when you're called on it,
can't even show one example.

It makes all the rest of the crap you espouse even less credible.

You really should learn to think for yourself, instead of letting others
to do the thinking for you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
>> non-combatants, especially civilians.
>
> And when a squad of US soldiers rapes a girl and murders her family,
> then sets fire to the house and threatens the neighbors - that's
> "nation-building".

Sigh. This bullshit again. I wondered when you would come up with it.

These guys were tried and convicted of their crimes. Maybe we should
hold you accountable for everything anyone in your city did. After all,
you live there, also.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
>
>>> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.
>>
>> And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto
>> you untill the bubble bursts :).
>
> Perhaps the US should change it's slogan from "United We Stand" to "Do
> you want fries with that?".

Yea, or maybe we should just kill all the idiots like you and make this
world a better place.

"Would you like to be fried with that"?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I
>> suggest you go back and study your history.
>>
>> Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.
>> Crawl back in your hole, troll.
>
> I've noticed that the low-lifes who behaved so poorly during that
> illegal war are the same ones who insist the Iraqis must be slaughtered
> as well.
>
> I just thank GOD y'all are a dying breed, and that your leaders are
> being tried and convicted for what they do.
>
>
>

Got it wrong again, idiot. We never said anything about slaughtering
Iraqis. In fact, we saved them from being slaughtered by a tyrant - one
who was convicted of killing millions of his own citizens.

And by who's definition is this war illegal? Yours? We already know
where your head is. The U.S.? Which laws. The U.N.? Why haven't they
charged us?

Just more bullshit, Sanders.

We are the strongest country in the world because we are the best
country in the world. And unlike your chicken-shit leaders, we will
stand up to terrorists.

Every time you post a message here you're sounding more and more like
the terrorists. So maybe we need to hold you responsible for the
bombings in Madrid, London, New York....

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>We are the strongest country in the world because we are the best
>country in the world. And unlike your chicken-shit leaders, we will
>stand up to terrorists.

*ROFL*

Sigged.

And you're wondering why you have been attacked? With such an attitude
the next 9/11 is just a question of time, that's for sure.

Micha

--
"We are the strongest country in the world because we are the best
country in the world. And unlike your chicken-shit leaders, we will
stand up to terrorists." (Jerry Stuckle in clp)

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:
>> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>>
>>> How many innocent civilians?
>>
>> Not many. Just some millions. Nothing special.
>
>Yes? And you have some proof of that? Or are you just talking out your
>ass? I suspect the latter.

Of course you do, because offending people is the only you can do. Not
only here, but in nearly every third thread. Everyone who doesn't agree
with you or doesn't want to sleep with your president in his Or^Hval
Office is a troll, an ass hole or something like that.

When God handed out social competence, was it you who shouted the
loudest "Not me, not me!"?

>Try again - with some real facts.
>
>And he isn't doing a thing to _your_ European civil rights. And all the
>rest of your statements are full of even more crap.
>
>I really suggest you get some facts before you pull your head out of
>your ass again.

As I said - you could find proof if you _want_ to find it (for all the
things I said). There are enough resources available. But of course
since they are just websites written by one person or maybe a few, they
don't have any credibility and are not worth the bytes. In fact the only
real source of truth is whitehouse.gov. Sorry, I should have known that.

Just wondering - if the US would ever get a black president - would he
leave the White House as it is?

>> You can find enough resources in the web if you _want_ to find them.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
>
>And you think that's the truth? ROFLMAO. It's ONE PERSON'S (or maybe a
>few people's) opinion.

I wouldn't call 150 references "a few people's opinions". And obviously
you think that even Amnesty International, Washington Post, CNN, BBC,
CBS, UN and whatever they're called don't have any credibility.

>I could write an article in wikipedia saying Michael Fesser is a horses
>ass. It would have more creditability that what you're pointing out.

Of course you can do that, I don't have a problem with that.
Of course you would also have to accept the consequences.

>But I forget - you believe everything you read on the internet.

Obviously you believe everything you see on TV. And just in case you
still live back in the 1850's - even reputable and credible news paper
magazines, scientific articles and such are available on the net. You
just have to know _where_ to search.

>> And before you laugh at Wikipedia or deny their credibility - there are
>> more than 150 references for all the claims and statements made in that
>> article. "Oil" is a major section in it - and it is proved.
>
>Yep, and how "accurate" are those references? Most are other websites
>with just as little credibility.

I knew you would say that.

>And hey - I didn't bring up the topic.

Neither did I. I just can't stand your damn arrogance and egoism.

>And no one asked you to stick
>your fat ass in here.
>
>If there's anyone who's a troll, it's you.

Thanks for that, old man. If arrogance would squeak, you would have to
walk around with an oil can all day.

Micha

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:
>
>> You know the song "Deja Vu" by John Fogerty?
>>
>> http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/john_fogerty/deja_vu_all_o ver_again.html
>>
>Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I suggest
>you go back and study your history.

I suggest you go back and study the lyrics.

>Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.

The artist _also_ knows first hand about it. Otherwise he wouldn't have
written the song (which BTW was written after the Iraq war began).

Micha

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

ay beecee wrote:
>
>
> Bush is a moron.
What took you so long?

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
>> non-combatants, especially civilians.
>
> And when a squad of US soldiers rapes a girl and murders her family,
> then sets fire to the house and threatens the neighbors - that's
> "nation-building".
Yup. Like the Russkies did to East Germany, and the Germans did to Poland.

Spreads the genes around a bit.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
>>> non-combatants, especially civilians.
>>
>> And when a squad of US soldiers rapes a girl and murders her family,
>> then sets fire to the house and threatens the neighbors - that's
>> "nation-building".
> Yup. Like the Russkies did to East Germany, and the Germans did to Poland.
>
> Spreads the genes around a bit.

Yea, right.

The Russians took over East Germany. The Germans took over Poland.

The U.S. has no intention of taking over Iraq. Just the opposite.
That's why they have a government freely elected by Iraqis, and we are
still there at their request. It's also why we are training their
security and defense personnel, with the goal of leaving there as soon
as they can handle things themselves.

And if their government told us to leave tomorrow, we would pull out.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>>> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>>>
>>>> How many innocent civilians?
>>> Not many. Just some millions. Nothing special.
>> Yes? And you have some proof of that? Or are you just talking out your
>> ass? I suspect the latter.
>
> Of course you do, because offending people is the only you can do. Not
> only here, but in nearly every third thread. Everyone who doesn't agree
> with you or doesn't want to sleep with your president in his Or^Hval
> Office is a troll, an ass hole or something like that.
>

Yea, right. I call them like I see them. It has nothing to do with not
agreeing with my President. It has everything to do with the likes of
you arguing things like the Russians taking over East Germany and trying
to compare that to the war in Iraq.

But if you don't see the difference, it shows your lack of intelligence.

And people who butt into a thread with that kind of shit are trolls.

OTOH, I don't mind a real conversation with real facts.

> When God handed out social competence, was it you who shouted the
> loudest "Not me, not me!"?
>
>> Try again - with some real facts.
>>
>> And he isn't doing a thing to _your_ European civil rights. And all the
>> rest of your statements are full of even more crap.
>>
>> I really suggest you get some facts before you pull your head out of
>> your ass again.
>
> As I said - you could find proof if you _want_ to find it (for all the
> things I said). There are enough resources available. But of course
> since they are just websites written by one person or maybe a few, they
> don't have any credibility and are not worth the bytes. In fact the only
> real source of truth is whitehouse.gov. Sorry, I should have known that.
>

You made the claim. You show the proof. And do it with real facts, not
claims made on some web site.

> Just wondering - if the US would ever get a black president - would he
> leave the White House as it is?
>

Another irrelevant remark.

>>> You can find enough resources in the web if you _want_ to find them.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
>> And you think that's the truth? ROFLMAO. It's ONE PERSON'S (or maybe a
>> few people's) opinion.
>
> I wouldn't call 150 references "a few people's opinions". And obviously
> you think that even Amnesty International, Washington Post, CNN, BBC,
> CBS, UN and whatever they're called don't have any credibility.
>

Let's see..

Amnesty International - a liberal organization.

The Washington ComPost - a junk paper. I know first hand - I get it
every day. 1/2 the stuff they print about the war and the president is
misleading or just plain wrong.

CNN - another liberal "source" full of inaccuracies - which can be proven.

BBC - no idea, I don't listen to them.

CBS - more of the same.

UN - a bunch of wimps.

For instance - CNN and the NY Times (another liberal paper) did a
complete recount of Florida after the 2000 election. Guess what? Bush
still won. But did they say anything about it? Not a chance.

When you only look at one side, you get a biased opinion. Try the other
side for a change - Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, for instance. Facts
you never hear "reported" by the liberal media.

>> I could write an article in wikipedia saying Michael Fesser is a horses
>> ass. It would have more creditability that what you're pointing out.
>
> Of course you can do that, I don't have a problem with that.
> Of course you would also have to accept the consequences.
>

What consequences? It's on the internet. It must be the truth.

>> But I forget - you believe everything you read on the internet.
>
> Obviously you believe everything you see on TV. And just in case you
> still live back in the 1850's - even reputable and credible news paper
> magazines, scientific articles and such are available on the net. You
> just have to know _where_ to search.
>

Not at all. However, unlike you, I listen to *both sides*. And I've
seen just how "credible" some of your "sources" are.

>>> And before you laugh at Wikipedia or deny their credibility - there are
>>> more than 150 references for all the claims and statements made in that
>>> article. "Oil" is a major section in it - and it is proved.
>> Yep, and how "accurate" are those references? Most are other websites
>> with just as little credibility.
>
> I knew you would say that.
>
>> And hey - I didn't bring up the topic.
>
> Neither did I. I just can't stand your damn arrogance and egoism.
>

So? Tough shit. You know what? I really don't give a damn.

>> And no one asked you to stick
>> your fat ass in here.
>>
>> If there's anyone who's a troll, it's you.
>
> Thanks for that, old man. If arrogance would squeak, you would have to
> walk around with an oil can all day.
>
> Micha

And if you needed a brain to go around the world, you wouldn't be able
to get around the block.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> We are the strongest country in the world because we are the best
>> country in the world. And unlike your chicken-shit leaders, we will
>> stand up to terrorists.
>
> *ROFL*
>
> Sigged.
>
> And you're wondering why you have been attacked? With such an attitude
> the next 9/11 is just a question of time, that's for sure.
>
> Micha
>

I never said we were immune to attacks. They've tried already, and been
stopped.

But they haven't been able to devote all of their energies to attacking
us because we're keeping them busy in Iraq. If we weren't there, then
they would be here.

Sure they want to attack us. They've stated that time and time again.
And someday they will if we don't destroy them first.

Remember - they started it. But we're going to finish it.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>>
>>> You know the song "Deja Vu" by John Fogerty?
>>>
>>> http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/john_fogerty/deja_vu_all_o ver_again.html
>>>
>> Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I suggest
>> you go back and study your history.
>
> I suggest you go back and study the lyrics.
>
>> Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.
>
> The artist _also_ knows first hand about it. Otherwise he wouldn't have
> written the song (which BTW was written after the Iraq war began).
>
> Micha

So? And what makes him an expert on politics, terrorism or war? He's
just a so-so singer who wrote a song. Hardly what I call credible.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Yea, or maybe we should just kill all the idiots like you and make this
> world a better place.

Like you did to Osama, eh?

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:

> And you're wondering why you have been attacked? With such an attitude
> the next 9/11 is just a question of time, that's for sure.

Amen.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> So? And what makes him an expert on politics, terrorism or war? He's
> just a so-so singer who wrote a song. Hardly what I call credible.

I like how you START by claiming that your "experience" in Nam makes you
an expert, but then END UP claiming that service in Nam does NOT even
make one "credible".

That thar's a fine example of the irrationality of the US Republican Guard.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Yea, or maybe we should just kill all the idiots like you and make
>> this world a better place.
>
> Like you did to Osama, eh?

Have you ever been in Eastern Afghanistan or Western Pakistan? I
thought not.

Just another irrelevant comment from an irrelevant idiot.

And a troll trying to change the subject because he has no real argument
of his own.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> So? And what makes him an expert on politics, terrorism or war? He's
>> just a so-so singer who wrote a song. Hardly what I call credible.
>
> I like how you START by claiming that your "experience" in Nam makes you
> an expert, but then END UP claiming that service in Nam does NOT even
> make one "credible".
>
> That thar's a fine example of the irrationality of the US Republican Guard.

Nope. I said nothing of the sort. But you need intelligence to carry
on an intelligent conversation. You obviously are incapable of such an
action.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Just another irrelevant comment from an irrelevant idiot.

It's always kinda funny to me when someone takes the time and expense to
boot up their computer, login to the OS, connect to the web, retrieve
my usenet posts, read them, and then go even farther, responding to the
post to let me know how "irrelevant" I am.

GOD knows - nobody will ever again call US Republicans "irrelevant".
And when the next 9/11 happens - nobody will ask "Why?".
Nobody.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Just another irrelevant comment from an irrelevant idiot.
>
> It's always kinda funny to me when someone takes the time and expense to
> boot up their computer, login to the OS, connect to the web, retrieve
> my usenet posts, read them, and then go even farther, responding to the
> post to let me know how "irrelevant" I am.
>
> GOD knows - nobody will ever again call US Republicans "irrelevant".
> And when the next 9/11 happens - nobody will ask "Why?".
> Nobody.

Only you would think I (or anyone else, for that matter) would go to all
that trouble to read your rantings.

Believe me, Sanders, you aren't that important. And I wouldn't even
read your tripe if it weren't the next thing in the forum.

But you aren't even worth the time it would take to filter your trash out.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
>>>> non-combatants, especially civilians.
>>>
>>> And when a squad of US soldiers rapes a girl and murders her family,
>>> then sets fire to the house and threatens the neighbors - that's
>>> "nation-building".
>> Yup. Like the Russkies did to East Germany, and the Germans did to
>> Poland.
>>
>> Spreads the genes around a bit.
>
> Yea, right.
>
> The Russians took over East Germany. The Germans took over Poland.
>
> The U.S. has no intention of taking over Iraq. Just the opposite.
> That's why they have a government freely elected by Iraqis, and we are
> still there at their request.

That's what the Russians said about every country m Eastern Europe.

> It's also why we are training their
> security and defense personnel, with the goal of leaving there as soon
> as they can handle things themselves.

Another familiar story.
>
> And if their government told us to leave tomorrow, we would pull out.
>

Like Saddam told you to stay out before you went in?

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
>>>>> non-combatants, especially civilians.
>>>>
>>>> And when a squad of US soldiers rapes a girl and murders her family,
>>>> then sets fire to the house and threatens the neighbors - that's
>>>> "nation-building".
>>> Yup. Like the Russkies did to East Germany, and the Germans did to
>>> Poland.
>>>
>>> Spreads the genes around a bit.
>>
>> Yea, right.
>>
>> The Russians took over East Germany. The Germans took over Poland.
>>
>> The U.S. has no intention of taking over Iraq. Just the opposite.
>> That's why they have a government freely elected by Iraqis, and we are
>> still there at their request.
>
> That's what the Russians said about every country m Eastern Europe.
>

Yea. Right.

>> It's also why we are training their security and defense personnel,
>> with the goal of leaving there as soon as they can handle things
>> themselves.
>
> Another familiar story.

Yep, it's what we do. It should be familiar.

>>
>> And if their government told us to leave tomorrow, we would pull out.
>>
>
> Like Saddam told you to stay out before you went in?

We don't listen to terrorists.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>When you only look at one side, you get a biased opinion. Try the other
>side for a change - Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, for instance. Facts
>you never hear "reported" by the liberal media.

Hmm, these guys?

The Document Sean Hannity Doesn't Want You To Read
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b91585.html

The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895

Micha

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> When you only look at one side, you get a biased opinion. Try the other
>> side for a change - Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, for instance. Facts
>> you never hear "reported" by the liberal media.
>
> Hmm, these guys?
>
> The Document Sean Hannity Doesn't Want You To Read
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b91585.html
>
> The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality
> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
>
> Micha

ROFLMAO! How long did it take you to find that pack of lies - taking
part of a conversation out of context and twisting it around.

You should have heard Sean's response - on the air - to this website.
He described their lies and half-truths one at a time. I'm surprised
they even have the balls to have the website up.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, these guys?
>>
>> The Document Sean Hannity Doesn't Want You To Read
>> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b91585.html
>>
>> The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality
>> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
>>
>ROFLMAO! How long did it take you to find that pack of lies - taking
>part of a conversation out of context and twisting it around.

Proof?

There are many more sites like the above, even some books. Also
interesting are things like these:

| I have documented repeated instances of Hannity refusing to allow a
| guest to speak when he disagrees with them or cutting an interview
| short when he doesn't like what a guest has to say.

or

| But, when it comes to critics of Mr. Bush’s unnecessary Iraq war, Sean
| Hannity has demonstrated that he can be at least as “hateful” toward
| and “bitterly angry” with those he rails against who are anti-Bush.

And many more. How can anyone ever take this guy seriously as an
interview partner?

>You should have heard Sean's response - on the air - to this website.

Why should I? He's just a so-so talker. Does this guy have any
credibility? Nope.

>He described their lies and half-truths one at a time.

It was on the radio, so it must be true?

Micha

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>>> Hmm, these guys?
>>>
>>> The Document Sean Hannity Doesn't Want You To Read
>>> http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b91585.html
>>>
>>> The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh Debates Reality
>>> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
>>>
>> ROFLMAO! How long did it take you to find that pack of lies - taking
>> part of a conversation out of context and twisting it around.
>
> Proof?
>
> There are many more sites like the above, even some books. Also
> interesting are things like these:
>
> | I have documented repeated instances of Hannity refusing to allow a
> | guest to speak when he disagrees with them or cutting an interview
> | short when he doesn't like what a guest has to say.
>
> or
>
> | But, when it comes to critics of Mr. Bush’s unnecessary Iraq war, Sean
> | Hannity has demonstrated that he can be at least as “hateful” toward
> | and “bitterly angry” with those he rails against who are anti-Bush.
>
> And many more. How can anyone ever take this guy seriously as an
> interview partner?
>
>> You should have heard Sean's response - on the air - to this website.
>
> Why should I? He's just a so-so talker. Does this guy have any
> credibility? Nope.
>
>> He described their lies and half-truths one at a time.
>
> It was on the radio, so it must be true?
>
> Micha

ROFLMAO! You really are a sucker, you know that?

And Sean's response contained the entire part of the conversation
involved - not just one little excerpt. And yes, he's the expert - he
was 1/2 of the conversation.

Sure, Sean can be hateful and/or bitterly angry when people twist the
truth, take things out of context - and just plain lie through their teeth.

And this is a perfect example. Yep, he has more credibility than an
anonymous post on a website by an organization known for their lies.
Especially when they were not part of the conversations involved, and
Sean was.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> Like Saddam told you to stay out before you went in?
>
> We don't listen to terrorists.

The problem with that is that everything terrifies you.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>ROFLMAO! You really are a sucker, you know that?

I don't have a problem with that.

>And this is a perfect example. Yep, he has more credibility than an
>anonymous post on a website by an organization known for their lies.
>Especially when they were not part of the conversations involved, and
>Sean was.

So a little conservative wannabe has more credibility than half of the
Web and many big organizations? Tell me why! Maybe it's just because he
has the same opinions as you? So he simply _must_ be right, because you
don't allow any other opinions?

Micha

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> Like Saddam told you to stay out before you went in?
>>
>> We don't listen to terrorists.
>
> The problem with that is that everything terrifies you.

Not at all. Terrorists don't terrify me.

The though of you actually writing programs, however, terrorizes me.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> ROFLMAO! You really are a sucker, you know that?
>
> I don't have a problem with that.
>
>> And this is a perfect example. Yep, he has more credibility than an
>> anonymous post on a website by an organization known for their lies.
>> Especially when they were not part of the conversations involved, and
>> Sean was.
>
> So a little conservative wannabe has more credibility than half of the
> Web and many big organizations? Tell me why! Maybe it's just because he
> has the same opinions as you? So he simply _must_ be right, because you
> don't allow any other opinions?
>
> Micha

ROFLMAO!

You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:ULqdna6tENuqfnDbnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Michael Fesser wrote:
>> So a little conservative wannabe has more credibility than half of the
>> Web and many big organizations? Tell me why! Maybe it's just because he
>> has the same opinions as you? So he simply _must_ be right, because you
>> don't allow any other opinions?
>>
>> Micha
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
> You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.

Most of life I was Republican. Then, when the "Immoral Minority" captured
the party I became Libertarian. The best thing I can say about this
upcoming election is that whoever gets in, from either party, at least we
won't have that sub-standard IQ and wannabe dictator Bush and his family
(now on his how-many-th excuse for invading Iraq?).

--
Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Shelly wrote:

> Most of life I was Republican. Then, when the "Immoral Minority" captured
> the party I became Libertarian. The best thing I can say about this
> upcoming election is that whoever gets in, from either party, at least we
> won't have that sub-standard IQ and wannabe dictator Bush and his family
> (now on his how-many-th excuse for invading Iraq?).

Sheesh - you start ONE holocaust, and suddenly everybody's a critic.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Shelly wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:ULqdna6tENuqfnDbnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>>> So a little conservative wannabe has more credibility than half of the
>>> Web and many big organizations? Tell me why! Maybe it's just because he
>>> has the same opinions as you? So he simply _must_ be right, because you
>>> don't allow any other opinions?
>>>
>>> Micha
>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>> You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.
>
> Most of life I was Republican. Then, when the "Immoral Minority" captured
> the party I became Libertarian. The best thing I can say about this
> upcoming election is that whoever gets in, from either party, at least we
> won't have that sub-standard IQ and wannabe dictator Bush and his family
> (now on his how-many-th excuse for invading Iraq?).
>
indeed. You may support what Bush and the neocons *tried* to achieve,
for for out and out incompetence in actually achieving it? Nah.

A triumph of ideology and self deception over reality.

Not.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> indeed. You may support what Bush and the neocons *tried* to achieve,
> for for out and out incompetence in actually achieving it? Nah.
>
> A triumph of ideology and self deception over reality.
> Not.

I used to think it was wildly improbable that the folks who support Bush
did /not/ know damned good and well what he was about when they did so.

But it seems that the same people who are stupid and irresponsible
enough to vote themselves a tax break when there's an outstanding and
past-due, mutli-generational debt to pay...

Well, those are the same people who were stupid and irresponsible enough
to be surprised to find out that he was a half-wit to a toad.

I mean - shit, the guy didn't make any secret about who or what he was,
even if his admen played it cool. For christ's sake, the twit blew up
frogs as a kid - that ain't right.

And when he publicly gave his life over to God, well if that didn't
cinch the strap on the old crazy-bag, I don't know what else could.

[tantrum]
I know that it's wrong to take pleasure in other people's suffering, but
when some God(#(&$muther(@#&$ Libertarian whines about getting exactly
what he didn't pay for, I get a sick little thrill.

But then I think about the million dead Iraqis and the thrill goes away.

Allah Akbar.
Death to George Bush.
Death to the soldiers who kill and maim, in His name.
[/tantrum]

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.

Says the one who can't even answer a simple question nor give any proof
for his claims. So much for your own credibility.

EOT
Micha

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> indeed. You may support what Bush and the neocons *tried* to achieve,
>> for for out and out incompetence in actually achieving it? Nah.
>>
>> A triumph of ideology and self deception over reality.
>> Not.
>
> I used to think it was wildly improbable that the folks who support Bush
> did /not/ know damned good and well what he was about when they did so.
>
> But it seems that the same people who are stupid and irresponsible
> enough to vote themselves a tax break when there's an outstanding and
> past-due, mutli-generational debt to pay...
>

Yea, and you know what? After that tax break, the economy improved, and
federal tax revenue INCREASED. You need to go back to Economics 101.
Raising taxes has an immediate increase, but the long term result is a
decrease in tax revenue. Whereas decreasing taxes (to a point) has the
effect of and immediate loss of tax revenue, but a long term gain in
revenue.

> Well, those are the same people who were stupid and irresponsible enough
> to be surprised to find out that he was a half-wit to a toad.
>

No, I'm not surprised at all that you are.

> I mean - shit, the guy didn't make any secret about who or what he was,
> even if his admen played it cool. For christ's sake, the twit blew up
> frogs as a kid - that ain't right.
>
> And when he publicly gave his life over to God, well if that didn't
> cinch the strap on the old crazy-bag, I don't know what else could.
>

Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

> [tantrum]
> I know that it's wrong to take pleasure in other people's suffering, but
> when some God(#(&$muther(@#&$ Libertarian whines about getting exactly
> what he didn't pay for, I get a sick little thrill.
>
> But then I think about the million dead Iraqis and the thrill goes away.
>
> Allah Akbar.
> Death to George Bush.
> Death to the soldiers who kill and maim, in His name.
> [/tantrum]
>
>

Yea, 1M dead Iraqis because of a murder who has been executed.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> You really don't have any clue. I'm sorry for you.
>
> Says the one who can't even answer a simple question nor give any proof
> for his claims. So much for your own credibility.
>
> EOT
> Micha

What question did you ask which was worth an answer?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...

> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

....and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who doesn't
mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for information).

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>> But it seems that the same people who are stupid and irresponsible
>> enough to vote themselves a tax break when there's an outstanding and
>> past-due, mutli-generational debt to pay...
>
> Yea, and you know what? After that tax break, the economy improved, and
> federal tax revenue INCREASED. You need to go back to Economics 101.

I CLEP'd Eco101 and 102.
Where your logic fails is in your use of just ONE side of the economic
equation.

Just because you have a credit card with a really high limit, doesn't
mean you're rich.

Then there's the HUMAN cost.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Shelly wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>
> ....and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who doesn't
> mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for information).

Amen.
The moon is in the 6th sun and this is the sunset of the age of
theology. Unfortunately, the religious nuts won't go without a fight.

--
That's why all those US soldiers have to die tonight.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Shelly wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>
> ...and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who doesn't
> mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for information).
>
>

The Bill of Rights says nothing about whether the President may be
religious or not. All it says is that government can't pass laws
telling YOU how you must/must not worship.

In fact, the Bill of Rights doesn't even say you can't display the 10
Commandments in a courthouse. But the courts have expanded the first
amendment far beyond it's original purpose. The Federalist Papers by
Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison is quite interesting
reading. It should how far we have strayed from the original intent.

And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
"overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
I don't try to tell you the same.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>
>> ....and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who
>> doesn't mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for
>> information).
>
> Amen.
> The moon is in the 6th sun and this is the sunset of the age of
> theology. Unfortunately, the religious nuts won't go without a fight.
>
> --
> That's why all those US soldiers have to die tonight.
>

And your religion will take over?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>>> But it seems that the same people who are stupid and irresponsible
>>> enough to vote themselves a tax break when there's an outstanding and
>>> past-due, mutli-generational debt to pay...
>>
>> Yea, and you know what? After that tax break, the economy improved,
>> and federal tax revenue INCREASED. You need to go back to Economics 101.
>
> I CLEP'd Eco101 and 102.

Then you need to go back to school.

> Where your logic fails is in your use of just ONE side of the economic
> equation.
>

And which side is that, Sanders? It must be the same side every
recognized economics expert in the world is on, though, so I guess I'm
in good company.

> Just because you have a credit card with a really high limit, doesn't
> mean you're rich.
>

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

> Then there's the HUMAN cost.

Yes, there is the human cost. Poor people have more money to spend on
necessities, so they are living better. People with higher incomes have
more money for luxuries, so they're living better. And all this extra
buying is creating more jobs, lowering the unemployment rate, which
gives more people a chance to move up in the economic world, so they're
living better.

In fact, the only ones not living better are the socialists who want to
control the country by taking hard-earned money from those who earned it
and give that money to people who sit on their behinds all day and drink
beer.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...

> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.

jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or atheism
itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to ask, what
scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with whatever
'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it indicate that
she may want to have with us? as there is no objective evidence, i can only
infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to do with us.

as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions that
atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad? mythra? zeus?
buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this is the most i've
ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing to do with afghanistan
or iraq, but everything to do with domestic policy inacted after 911...and
how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved and rallied under the banner
of 'god' in leu of ration thought - especially thought that is critical of
current events in light of history.

give me an atheist about now, please!

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
> by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
> trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
proper dictionary definition.

atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

that's all. i resent the implication that i am religious. i'm no more
religious for my lack of belief in god that i am for my lack of belief in
the toothfairy.

at least when i lost my tooth as a child, there was proof of a
toothfairy...i always had a quarter under my pillow where my tooth had been!

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Steve wrote:
>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
>> by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
>> trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>
> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
> proper dictionary definition.
>
> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
>
> that's all. i resent the implication that i am religious. i'm no more
> religious for my lack of belief in god that i am for my lack of belief in
> the toothfairy.
>
> at least when i lost my tooth as a child, there was proof of a
> toothfairy...i always had a quarter under my pillow where my tooth had been!
>
>

Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
"lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.

Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>
> jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or atheism
> itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to ask, what
> scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with whatever
> 'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it indicate that
> she may want to have with us? as there is no objective evidence, i can only
> infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to do with us.
>

I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me. And
I feel sorry for you.

> as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions that
> atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad? mythra? zeus?
> buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this is the most i've
> ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing to do with afghanistan
> or iraq, but everything to do with domestic policy inacted after 911...and
> how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved and rallied under the banner
> of 'god' in leu of ration thought - especially thought that is critical of
> current events in light of history.
>
> give me an atheist about now, please!
>
>

I don't care what you believe in. However, when you try to impose your
religion on me, the President or anyone else, I draw the line.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:6Z6dnZEIv9iJMnLbnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>
>> ...and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who doesn't
>> mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for information).
>
> The Bill of Rights says nothing about whether the President may be
> religious or not. All it says is that government can't pass laws telling
> YOU how you must/must not worship.
>
> In fact, the Bill of Rights doesn't even say you can't display the 10
> Commandments in a courthouse. But the courts have expanded the first
> amendment far beyond it's original purpose. The Federalist Papers by
> Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison is quite interesting
> reading. It should how far we have strayed from the original intent.
>
> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
> by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
> trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>
> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and I
> worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and I
> don't try to tell you the same.

Exactly! I don't give a damn whether the president is religious or not.
That is exactly my point. I just don't want him to mix religion with
politics. And, yes, atheism is also sort of a religion. It is the belief
that there is no god. It doesn't matter to me what anyone in office
believes about God, just so long as it doesn't enter the political
considerations. That is what I have against the "Christian Wrong". If they
want to confine their religious beliefs to their churches and to how they
conduct their morality for themselves, that is great. When they try to
impose those beliefs or what they consider their morality on me, that is
where I draw the line. That was why I have always been against Blue Laws,
why I am for a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body
[until viability] (BTW, I am male. My name is Sheldon), and why I am
against ANY funding for ANY ***private*** school -- parochial or secular,
vouchers or otherwise.

My entry into this was when you said "Hey, I'd much rather have a
God-fearing President than an atheist.". I disagree -- not that I would
rather have an atheist than a "God-fearing" man as President; just that I
think that the distinction should be irrelevent when it comes to carrying
out the duties of the Presidency OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL OFFICE.

A little note to you Jerry: This country is the one country that has in its
founding document a separation of religion and politics. It is also the one
western nation that has the highest attendence rate at
church/sysnagogue/mosque and has the most religious buildings per capita.
This is even above such Christian countries as Italy (Catholic), France
(Catholic) and Britain (Church of England). What does that imply to you
about the need to impose religion via politics?

--
Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>
>> ...and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who
>> doesn't mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for
>> information).
>>
>
> The Bill of Rights says nothing about whether the President may be
> religious or not. All it says is that government can't pass laws
> telling YOU how you must/must not worship.
>
> In fact, the Bill of Rights doesn't even say you can't display the 10
> Commandments in a courthouse. But the courts have expanded the first
> amendment far beyond it's original purpose. The Federalist Papers by
> Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison is quite interesting
> reading. It should how far we have strayed from the original intent.
>
> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
> atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.

Atheism is a religion?
Do you actually have any clue?

Please Jerry: I read this whole thread (my bad) and came to the
conclusion you better stick with PHP.
You can speak with some authority on PHP, but your worldview....
It is dangerous singleminded dribble in my humble opinion.

You showed (again) why most well thinking people in this world feel
sorry for Americans who must live in the same country ruled by religious
conservative antiscientific fundamentalists.
I am sick of Bush and his clan, as is the whole free world.

But I guess you simply don't give a damn, so Bushlike.


A few quotes for you:
************************************************
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never
give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).
************************************************


************************************************
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed
myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor
************************************************


************************************************
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions,
Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find
religion encumbered with in these days?"

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no
religion in it."

-John Adams, U.S. President, Founding Father of the United States
************************************************


Erwin


>
> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
> I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
> I don't try to tell you the same.
>

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
> I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
> I don't try to tell you the same.

The Constitution also only counted black people as 3/5 of a human.

The genius of the constitution is that it's ammendable, and the Bill of
Rights is just a bunch of ammendments - which can be repealed.

It's time to let our tolerance of religious extremism go the way of our
tolerance of slavery.

--
If 9/11 taught us nothing else, it's that religious zealots are
/everybody's/ mortal enemy.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Steve" wrote in message
news:gfPHi.28$zy3.22@newsfe02.lga...
>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
>> by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
>> trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>
> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
> proper dictionary definition.
>
> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From www.m-w.com

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
no deity

To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
"disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix "doctrine"
with theology you have "religion".

The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone. Everyone
is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it into
politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in the USA
**BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.

--
Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:ZVPHi.50834$Um6.17124@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and I
>> worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and I
>> don't try to tell you the same.
>
> The Constitution also only counted black people as 3/5 of a human.
>
> The genius of the constitution is that it's ammendable, and the Bill of
> Rights is just a bunch of ammendments - which can be repealed.
>
> It's time to let our tolerance of religious extremism go the way of our
> tolerance of slavery.
>
> --
> If 9/11 taught us nothing else, it's that religious zealots are
> /everybody's/ mortal enemy.

I LOVE that last statement. Down with the Unpatriot Act! Next year it is
"So long Bush, it's not been good to know ya".

--
Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

> Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
> "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.
>
> Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.

negative, ghost rider.

'a' latin: without
'theism' latin: belief in god(s)

try websters instead of your own opinion.

tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists observe?
where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that resembles anything
religious?

as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe that
god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa clause or
the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this critical
observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a asanta-clausian?

'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a religion
make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would be the start
of religion.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13evgmn96rktr44@corp.supernews.com...

>And, yes, atheism is also sort of a religion. It is the belief that there
>is no god.

lol. at least you say 'sort' of religion. ;^)

let me just say this, shelly. if someone told me that i was going to die
tomorrow, i'd want proof. until i had it, i would be a fool to believe
it...right? further, if the source of that information was a doctor, he'd
have proof. not only that, i could take that proof and show it to another
doctor. they'd probably come to the same conclusion if the proof was
irrefutable. other than that, they may just bicker about my expiration date.

with religion, it's a whole different ballgame. i can take 'subjective'
evidence for god (there is no objective evidence) and take it not only to
different clergy, different people within the same denomination, to
different groups and cultures. each would have a different take on what that
evidence suggests. that's the nature of subjective evidence and is the
reality of religion. where there objective evidence for the existence of
god, we'd indeed have one god viewed by all people the same way. since we
don't, we see notions of gods evolving as man's intellect grows...from many
people-like gods to a single god...from controlling everything good and bad
to being credited with only good and all bad being the spawn of an evil
entity - satan.

if i have no evidence by which i can test the theory that god exists, how
can i prove he does. and in logic courses in college, isn't the onus - the
burden of proof - on those making the claim? is the rejection, due to lack
of evidence, of a claim a religion? i don't think so.

why do religious people find it necessary to deem lack of belief in god
equal to a religion? what does that get them? if you were to try and
pursuade or convert me to another line of thought, you'd have alienated me
by not understanding me and worse, incorrectly presuming that you did.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:nNqdnZZZKfElX3LbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>
>> jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or atheism
>> itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to ask, what
>> scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with whatever
>> 'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it indicate
>> that she may want to have with us? as there is no objective evidence, i
>> can only infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to do with us.
>>
>
> I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me. And I
> feel sorry for you.

oh my!

i can see the romanticism in the idea of the things hoped for. that is the
nature of humanity. however, to afix that to a god-figure and create a
regiment of though/belief about that concept - one that rules your life and
had such a huge and not always pleasant mark on the history of others
lives - without proof or indications that say you seem to be correct...that
is just scary!

why is it that most rational people who go through their lives applying
critical thinking to all aspects of their lives, negate or forbid themselves
from doing the same with this one, special case - god? that is wholly beyond
me!

you go ahead and feel sorry for me. i hope you are serving the 'right' one,
cuz all of the major religions now are quite exclusive in membership with
eternal damnation for not joining. (he pauses to think...i wonder if jerry
is going to come back with the good ol' pascal wager at this point...then
chuckles to self)

>> as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions
>> that atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad?
>> mythra? zeus? buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this
>> is the most i've ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing to
>> do with afghanistan or iraq, but everything to do with domestic policy
>> inacted after 911...and how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved
>> and rallied under the banner of 'god' in leu of ration thought -
>> especially thought that is critical of current events in light of
>> history.
>>
>> give me an atheist about now, please!
>
> I don't care what you believe in. However, when you try to impose your
> religion on me, the President or anyone else, I draw the line.

and the world shudders.

why are christians so eager to say that but gaffaw when atheists, for the
exact same reason, want to remove religious icons from mountainsides in
california, or edicts greeting patrons of public places, or pray in schools?
why is there a double standard?

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Steve, I know that atheists like to claim that it is "lack of belief", but
go to websters at www.m-w.com. It specifically states that it is "disbelief
in the existence of deity". What you call "atheism" is really
"agnosticism". Again, from Websters:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from
gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is
unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to
believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something agnostics>

For the record, I used to be an agnostic, but then moved to deist and
finally went back to associating with my birth religion. Yes, there is no
objective proor, nor even ANY proof in the belief in a god. It is totally a
matter of faith, and totally unscientific.

--
Shelly

"Steve" wrote in message
news:urQHi.35$zy3.32@newsfe02.lga...
>
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13evgmn96rktr44@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>And, yes, atheism is also sort of a religion. It is the belief that there
>>is no god.
>
> lol. at least you say 'sort' of religion. ;^)
>
> let me just say this, shelly. if someone told me that i was going to die
> tomorrow, i'd want proof. until i had it, i would be a fool to believe
> it...right? further, if the source of that information was a doctor, he'd
> have proof. not only that, i could take that proof and show it to another
> doctor. they'd probably come to the same conclusion if the proof was
> irrefutable. other than that, they may just bicker about my expiration
> date.
>
> with religion, it's a whole different ballgame. i can take 'subjective'
> evidence for god (there is no objective evidence) and take it not only to
> different clergy, different people within the same denomination, to
> different groups and cultures. each would have a different take on what
> that evidence suggests. that's the nature of subjective evidence and is
> the reality of religion. where there objective evidence for the existence
> of god, we'd indeed have one god viewed by all people the same way. since
> we don't, we see notions of gods evolving as man's intellect grows...from
> many people-like gods to a single god...from controlling everything good
> and bad to being credited with only good and all bad being the spawn of an
> evil entity - satan.
>
> if i have no evidence by which i can test the theory that god exists, how
> can i prove he does. and in logic courses in college, isn't the onus - the
> burden of proof - on those making the claim? is the rejection, due to lack
> of evidence, of a claim a religion? i don't think so.
>
> why do religious people find it necessary to deem lack of belief in god
> equal to a religion? what does that get them? if you were to try and
> pursuade or convert me to another line of thought, you'd have alienated me
> by not understanding me and worse, incorrectly presuming that you did.
>
>

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

For the record, while I believe in God, to this very day I leave out the
"under God" when I say the pledge. I was in high school when Eisenhower
pushed that through and I resented its insertion even then. At that time I
was much more active in my religion than I am now, but was I more concerned
with the First Amendment. I have seen what has happened to religious
minorities throughout history when the state had an "official religion".

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13evj2pqislbh1e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:gfPHi.28$zy3.22@newsfe02.lga...
>>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
>>> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
>>> atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>>
>> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
>> proper dictionary definition.
>>
>> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
>
> Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From
> www.m-w.com
>
> Main Entry: athe·ism
> Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
> godless, from a- + theos god
> 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
> 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
> no deity
>
> To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
> "disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix "doctrine"
> with theology you have "religion".

sorry. to disbelieve something means that there is in fact something in
evidence to believe, and that one is simply not making the same conclusion
with that information. 'give the devil his due'...lol. present evidence of
god and then perhaps i might start 'disbelieving' it. until then, your case
is not ready to present and there is nothing for me to disbelieve.

> The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
> Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
> with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone.
> Everyone is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it
> into politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in the
> USA **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.

which i don't argue. what i do not like in the least is either of you
presuming to know what i believe, even to the point that you feel
comfortable that you can cast labels out. i'm not at all religious. i'm
logical. further, there is no religion in the studies of sciences of old
that i don't believe any longer because of the evidences discovered by
modern sciences. i simply don't think about god because there is no reason
to. i understand that religious people can believe in god but go about their
day in the same way - not thinking of god - however, don't confuse their
lack of commitment in their own beliefs with my lack of merit given to the
notion of god(s) without evidence. god simply doesn't interest me. whatever
evidence you have for him, it certainly should be infered that she has the
same interest level in humanity.

shelly, if your spouse showed you the same level of interest as god - no
flowers from time to time, no 'hope you have a good day at work' note in
your car's driver seat, not even so much as evidence that he'd been sleeping
next to you that night (sheets crinckled and turned back) - would you assume
that he loved you and wanted a relationship with you that warranted your
lifetime commitment? again, what evidence is there that god exists? you have
faith, sure...but that is subjective. what in the natural world in which i'm
engaged, what can i point at and say 'that is god', 'there's your proof'?
think carefully, because all things that have been pointed at throughout
history as 'there's your proof' have all been explained by science...even
down to the origin of the universe.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
> news:ZVPHi.50834$Um6.17124@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
>>> I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
>>> I don't try to tell you the same.
>>
>> The Constitution also only counted black people as 3/5 of a human.
>>
>> The genius of the constitution is that it's ammendable, and the Bill of
>> Rights is just a bunch of ammendments - which can be repealed.
>>
>> It's time to let our tolerance of religious extremism go the way of our
>> tolerance of slavery.
>>
>> --
>> If 9/11 taught us nothing else, it's that religious zealots are
>> /everybody's/ mortal enemy.
>
> I LOVE that last statement. Down with the Unpatriot Act! Next year it is
> "So long Bush, it's not been good to know ya".

unless we go to war. in which case, he cannot be removed from office. ;^)

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13evm5v1at70h21@corp.supernews.com...
> Steve, I know that atheists like to claim that it is "lack of belief", but
> go to websters at www.m-w.com. It specifically states that it is
> "disbelief in the existence of deity". What you call "atheism" is really
> "agnosticism". Again, from Websters:

negative, ghost rider.

i am without belief in god. remember your latin. i am without belief in god.
whatever you want to call that, that's what i am. i see no evidence for god,
and in such a state, i cannot be agnostic. i do not allow for the
possibility of god's existence due to lack of evidence. agnostics believe
that god could possibly exist, we just cannot know for sure. that is NOT me.

i don't know where i'm losing you here, shelly. perhaps we have different
versions of websters. perhaps as she aged, meriam couldn't help herself
either and started using disbelief - which means there is evidence there is
something in which to believe...a gross presumption. try other dictionaries.
they all differ. hell, dictionary.com definition shows many sources. here's
what i love seeing...it shows complete lack of understanding which is why we
are having this discourse.

american heritage:

disbelief or denial of the existence of god or gods.

right next to:

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

doesn't denial mean there is unequivically something in evidence for me to
deny? are you getting my point?

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13evmihhjpk1lbf@corp.supernews.com...
> For the record, while I believe in God, to this very day I leave out the
> "under God" when I say the pledge. I was in high school when Eisenhower
> pushed that through and I resented its insertion even then. At that time
> I was much more active in my religion than I am now, but was I more
> concerned with the First Amendment. I have seen what has happened to
> religious minorities throughout history when the state had an "official
> religion".
>
> Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

and those who are great scholars are best equipped to easily recreate it.

(man i hate conventional 'wisdom'...but that's another topic altogether)

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Steve" wrote in message
news:DWQHi.1$W76.0@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13evj2pqislbh1e@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Steve" wrote in message
>> news:gfPHi.28$zy3.22@newsfe02.lga...
>>>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
>>>> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
>>>> atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>>>
>>> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
>>> proper dictionary definition.
>>>
>>> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
>>
>> Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From
>> www.m-w.com
>>
>> Main Entry: athe·ism
>> Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
>> godless, from a- + theos god
>> 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
>> 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there
>> is no deity
>>
>> To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
>> "disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix
>> "doctrine" with theology you have "religion".
>
> sorry. to disbelieve something means that there is in fact something in
> evidence to believe, and that one is simply not making the same conclusion
> with that information. 'give the devil his due'...lol. present evidence of

I thought you might find that phrase amusing.

> god and then perhaps i might start 'disbelieving' it. until then, your
> case is not ready to present and there is nothing for me to disbelieve.

Again from www.m-w.com
Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: "dis-b&-'lEf
Function: noun
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

These says (in this context) the declarative that "there is no god", not "I
haven't been convinced into believing that there is a god". It is not
"rejecting the belief in a god". It is "rejecting the belief in a god
because the existence is untrue". It is declarative, not passive. I don't
have to present "proof" for you to reject. There is no proof.

>> The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
>> Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
>> with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone.
>> Everyone is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it
>> into politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in
>> the USA **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.
>
> which i don't argue. what i do not like in the least is either of you
> presuming to know what i believe, even to the point that you feel

I understand what you believe. I totally understand it. I was almost there
once, myself. I am giving you the dictionary definition of the words
atheist and agnostic. What you call atheist, is more properly classified
encompassing both [dictionary] atheist and agnostic.

> comfortable that you can cast labels out. i'm not at all religious. i'm
> logical. further, there is no religion in the studies of sciences of old
> that i don't believe any longer because of the evidences discovered by
> modern sciences. i simply don't think about god because there is no reason
> to. i understand that religious people can believe in god but go about
> their day in the same way - not thinking of god - however, don't confuse
> their lack of commitment in their own beliefs with my lack of merit given
> to the notion of god(s) without evidence. god simply doesn't interest me.
> whatever evidence you have for him, it certainly should be infered that
> she has the same interest level in humanity.
>
> shelly, if your spouse showed you the same level of interest as god - no
> flowers from time to time, no 'hope you have a good day at work' note in

I should by her flowers every now and again, now that you mention it.

> your car's driver seat, not even so much as evidence that he'd been
> sleeping

I have been married to my wife for over 44 years.

> next to you that night (sheets crinckled and turned back) - would you
> assume that he loved you and wanted a relationship with you that warranted
> your lifetime commitment? again, what evidence is there that god exists?
> you have

I have NO evidence that God exists because there is none. I simply take it
on faith after taking my logic to the point where I cannot go any further
without invoking the supernatural. I don't presume to try to prove it,
because it cannot be done.

> faith, sure...but that is subjective. what in the natural world in which
> i'm engaged, what can i point at and say 'that is god', 'there's your
> proof'?

Nothing.

> think carefully, because all things that have been pointed at throughout
> history as 'there's your proof' have all been explained by science...even

Yes.

> down to the origin of the universe.

....err, with that last one there are theories -- and only that. I find even
the "Big Bang" uncomfortable (and I am a scientist) because I then question
"where did all that super-condensed matter come from in the first place". I
guess the best definition of "God" is "that which is beyond mankind's
ultimate understanding". No, I do not believe in an interactive God.

--
Shelly (Sheldon)

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Steve" wrote in message
news:zZQHi.3$W76.2@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>> I LOVE that last statement. Down with the Unpatriot Act! Next year it
>> is "So long Bush, it's not been good to know ya".
>
> unless we go to war. in which case, he cannot be removed from office. ;^)

Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers on
the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January 2009, he
is [bad] history.

--
Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Steve" wrote in message
news:0bRHi.6$W76.1@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13evm5v1at70h21@corp.supernews.com...
>> Steve, I know that atheists like to claim that it is "lack of belief",
>> but go to websters at www.m-w.com. It specifically states that it is
>> "disbelief in the existence of deity". What you call "atheism" is really
>> "agnosticism". Again, from Websters:
>
> negative, ghost rider.
>
> i am without belief in god. remember your latin. i am without belief in
> god. whatever you want to call that, that's what i am. i see no evidence
> for god, and in such a state, i cannot be agnostic. i do not allow for the
> possibility of god's existence due to lack of evidence. agnostics believe
> that god could possibly exist, we just cannot know for sure. that is NOT
> me.
>
> i don't know where i'm losing you here, shelly. perhaps we have different
> versions of websters. perhaps as she aged, meriam couldn't help herself
> either and started using disbelief - which means there is evidence there
> is something in which to believe...a gross presumption. try other
> dictionaries. they all differ. hell, dictionary.com definition shows many
> sources. here's what i love seeing...it shows complete lack of
> understanding which is why we are having this discourse.
>
> american heritage:
>
> disbelief or denial of the existence of god or gods.
>
> right next to:
>
> a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
>
> doesn't denial mean there is unequivically something in evidence for me to
> deny? are you getting my point?

No, and yes. Example:

Statgement: "I watched TV last night"
Denial: No you didn't.

Where is there something in unequivocably in evidence for having watched TV
last night? It is still a "denial".

OK, you can live with your definition from American Heritage. All my life,
we always referred to Websters, so I'll live with mine.

Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

>> sorry. to disbelieve something means that there is in fact something in
>> evidence to believe, and that one is simply not making the same
>> conclusion with that information. 'give the devil his due'...lol. present
>> evidence of
>
> I thought you might find that phrase amusing.

gave me pause to chuckle. ;^)

>> god and then perhaps i might start 'disbelieving' it. until then, your
>> case is not ready to present and there is nothing for me to disbelieve.
>
> Again from www.m-w.com
> Main Entry: dis·be·lief
> Pronunciation: "dis-b&-'lEf
> Function: noun
> : the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
>
> These says (in this context) the declarative that "there is no god", not
> "I haven't been convinced into believing that there is a god". It is not
> "rejecting the belief in a god". It is "rejecting the belief in a god
> because the existence is untrue". It is declarative, not passive. I
> don't have to present "proof" for you to reject. There is no proof.

which has no bearing on atheism or agnosticism, actually. but the act of
rejecting a notion does not constitute a religion. and, the biggest
difference between an atheist and and agnostic is what they do mentally
*after* the rejection.

an atheist only claims that there is no *evidence* that god and exists, then
draws a conclusion from there that one must not exist.

an agnostic, though not having evidence, may well reject the postulate
however not conclude that god does not exist as a result thereof. for him,
god's existence may be a possibility but could very well be unverifiable
because of the nature of our existence and the nature of his/hers.

is that understandable? and, i really don't care what i'm called. i just
hate religious people telling me what i believe without even know the
differences between what they are labling me. were i to be religious, i'd be
very concerned that my god(s) didn't care enough about me to even give the
slightest bit of objective perceptability of themselves. being logical and
loving to infer, i can only assume they/he/she/it is very disinterested in
me. likewise, if i cannot perceive a thing, if it has no intelligable impact
or influence on me, of what value should it be to me. obviously if i'm not
thinking of god, you know my response.


>>> The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
>>> Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
>>> with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone.
>>> Everyone is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it
>>> into politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in
>>> the USA **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.
>>
>> which i don't argue. what i do not like in the least is either of you
>> presuming to know what i believe, even to the point that you feel
>
> I understand what you believe. I totally understand it. I was almost
> there once, myself. I am giving you the dictionary definition of the
> words atheist and agnostic. What you call atheist, is more properly
> classified encompassing both [dictionary] atheist and agnostic.

i hope you understand the point i was drawing out above. in the end, i
really don't care what i'm called as long as the lable isn't a barrier to
someone actually understanding or getting to know me.

>> shelly, if your spouse showed you the same level of interest as god - no
>> flowers from time to time, no 'hope you have a good day at work' note in
>
> I should by her flowers every now and again, now that you mention it.

as should we all...respective spouses...not yours specifically. ;^)

>> your car's driver seat, not even so much as evidence that he'd been
>> sleeping
>
> I have been married to my wife for over 44 years.

sorry...'shelly'...either assumption correct and you are in same sex
marriage...or, assumption incorrect and i should appologize. ;^)

my point however, was not lost hopefully.

>> next to you that night (sheets crinckled and turned back) - would you
>> assume that he loved you and wanted a relationship with you that
>> warranted your lifetime commitment? again, what evidence is there that
>> god exists? you have
>
> I have NO evidence that God exists because there is none. I simply take
> it on faith after taking my logic to the point where I cannot go any
> further without invoking the supernatural. I don't presume to try to
> prove it, because it cannot be done.

finally! most christians say this or that is evidence, even so much so that
theirs is the correct interpretation of said this/that. what gets me though
is your lack of desire to prove it. if it cannot be proven, how can god(s)
hold us accountable for disbelief? especially when the consequences are so
dire? if i was made logical, he's got no one to blame for himself when i say
it is illogical to just believe. he's got no one to blame but himself since
he gives me no way to find him given the way i was 'created'. to me, that's
just fucking mean!


>> faith, sure...but that is subjective. what in the natural world in which
>> i'm engaged, what can i point at and say 'that is god', 'there's your
>> proof'?
>
> Nothing.
>
>> think carefully, because all things that have been pointed at throughout
>> history as 'there's your proof' have all been explained by science...even
>
> Yes.
>
>> down to the origin of the universe.
>
> ...err, with that last one there are theories -- and only that. I find
> even the "Big Bang" uncomfortable (and I am a scientist) because I then
> question "where did all that super-condensed matter come from in the first
> place". I guess the best definition of "God" is "that which is beyond
> mankind's ultimate understanding". No, I do not believe in an interactive
> God.

kind of like the question no intelligent design person will ask, or
answer...if complex things need to be created by a designer, then the
designer must be at least equally complex, who then created that
designer...and so on, and so on.

i can tell you that even though the origin of the universe *prior* to
singularity may well be unknowable, what happened afterward is completely
explainable...and any question answered by goddidit is wholly inadequate.
science doesn't give goddidit answered. but, i digress.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13evoir44bali44@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:0bRHi.6$W76.1@newsfe12.lga...
>>
>> "Shelly" wrote in message
>> news:13evm5v1at70h21@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Steve, I know that atheists like to claim that it is "lack of belief",
>>> but go to websters at www.m-w.com. It specifically states that it is
>>> "disbelief in the existence of deity". What you call "atheism" is
>>> really "agnosticism". Again, from Websters:
>>
>> negative, ghost rider.
>>
>> i am without belief in god. remember your latin. i am without belief in
>> god. whatever you want to call that, that's what i am. i see no evidence
>> for god, and in such a state, i cannot be agnostic. i do not allow for
>> the possibility of god's existence due to lack of evidence. agnostics
>> believe that god could possibly exist, we just cannot know for sure. that
>> is NOT me.
>>
>> i don't know where i'm losing you here, shelly. perhaps we have different
>> versions of websters. perhaps as she aged, meriam couldn't help herself
>> either and started using disbelief - which means there is evidence there
>> is something in which to believe...a gross presumption. try other
>> dictionaries. they all differ. hell, dictionary.com definition shows many
>> sources. here's what i love seeing...it shows complete lack of
>> understanding which is why we are having this discourse.
>>
>> american heritage:
>>
>> disbelief or denial of the existence of god or gods.
>>
>> right next to:
>>
>> a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
>>
>> doesn't denial mean there is unequivically something in evidence for me
>> to deny? are you getting my point?
>
> No, and yes. Example:
>
> Statgement: "I watched TV last night"
> Denial: No you didn't.
>
> Where is there something in unequivocably in evidence for having watched
> TV last night? It is still a "denial".

good point. however, it is what is done after 'denial' that makes an atheist
or agnostic.

> OK, you can live with your definition from American Heritage. All my
> life, we always referred to Websters, so I'll live with mine.

i perfer not being labeled at all. ;^)

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13evo8tqk97ip9c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:zZQHi.3$W76.2@newsfe12.lga...
>>
>> "Shelly" wrote in message
>> news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>>> I LOVE that last statement. Down with the Unpatriot Act! Next year it
>>> is "So long Bush, it's not been good to know ya".
>>
>> unless we go to war. in which case, he cannot be removed from office. ;^)
>
> Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers
> on the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January
> 2009, he is [bad] history.

as far as i can remember from history courses some time ago, there are two
circumstances underwhich a president can occupy his seat for more that eight
years (two-terms). first, is assumption of presidency via the demise of the
encumbant...i.e. assassination, and then being re-elected for his ensuing
term(s) for a total service time of 12 years. and, in the event of war a
president's term may be extended beyond either of those periods of time (8
and 12 years).

i may, however, no be recalling correctly on the latter. i'll have to check.
scary if true though.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Steve" wrote in message
news:1PRHi.14$Wv3.12@newsfe06.lga...
>
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13evo8tqk97ip9c@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Steve" wrote in message
>> news:zZQHi.3$W76.2@newsfe12.lga...
>>>
>>> "Shelly" wrote in message
>>> news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> I LOVE that last statement. Down with the Unpatriot Act! Next year it
>>>> is "So long Bush, it's not been good to know ya".
>>>
>>> unless we go to war. in which case, he cannot be removed from office.
>>> ;^)
>>
>> Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers
>> on the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January
>> 2009, he is [bad] history.
>
> as far as i can remember from history courses some time ago, there are two
> circumstances underwhich a president can occupy his seat for more that
> eight years (two-terms). first, is assumption of presidency via the demise
> of the encumbant...i.e. assassination, and then being re-elected for his
> ensuing term(s) for a total service time of 12 years. and, in the event of
> war a president's term may be extended beyond either of those periods of
> time (8 and 12 years).

No! The limit is just less than 10 years. If he has more than half the
remaining term if the deceased president, then he can only be elected one
time (> 6 years). If less that half, then he can be elected twice (<10
years)
>
> i may, however, no be recalling correctly on the latter. i'll have to
> check. scary if true though.

I never heard of the war thing.

Here it is:

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than
twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as
President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was
elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than
once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of
President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not
prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as
President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from
holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder
of such term [vis: Truman].

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as
an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the
States by the Congress.

No mention of war.

--

Shelly (Sheldon)

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13evsud22viks68@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:1PRHi.14$Wv3.12@newsfe06.lga...
>>
>> "Shelly" wrote in message
>> news:13evo8tqk97ip9c@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "Steve" wrote in message
>>> news:zZQHi.3$W76.2@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>
>>>> "Shelly" wrote in message
>>>> news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> I LOVE that last statement. Down with the Unpatriot Act! Next year
>>>>> it is "So long Bush, it's not been good to know ya".
>>>>
>>>> unless we go to war. in which case, he cannot be removed from office.
>>>> ;^)
>>>
>>> Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers
>>> on the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January
>>> 2009, he is [bad] history.
>>
>> as far as i can remember from history courses some time ago, there are
>> two circumstances underwhich a president can occupy his seat for more
>> that eight years (two-terms). first, is assumption of presidency via the
>> demise of the encumbant...i.e. assassination, and then being re-elected
>> for his ensuing term(s) for a total service time of 12 years. and, in the
>> event of war a president's term may be extended beyond either of those
>> periods of time (8 and 12 years).
>
> No! The limit is just less than 10 years. If he has more than half the
> remaining term if the deceased president, then he can only be elected one
> time (> 6 years). If less that half, then he can be elected twice (<10
> years)

you're right...i knew that...my math sucks! i guess that's why i have a
computer do my number crunching. ;^)

>> i may, however, no be recalling correctly on the latter. i'll have to
>> check. scary if true though.
>
> I never heard of the war thing.

perhaps i heard it wrong. i'll have to look into where i did hear that. now
my interest is peaked.

cheers.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Steve wrote:
>> Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
>> "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.
>>
>> Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.
>
> negative, ghost rider.
>
> 'a' latin: without
> 'theism' latin: belief in god(s)
>
> try websters instead of your own opinion.
>

Which does not mean it is not a religion.

> tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists observe?
> where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that resembles anything
> religious?
>

Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a belief.

> as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe that
> god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa clause or
> the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this critical
> observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a asanta-clausian?
>

That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try
to convince me my opinion is wrong.

As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.

> 'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a religion
> make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would be the start
> of religion.
>
>

And you have a belief in the lack of a god.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Shelly wrote:
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:gfPHi.28$zy3.22@newsfe02.lga...
>>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently "overlooked"
>>> by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many atheists are
>>> trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
>> proper dictionary definition.
>>
>> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
>
> Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From www.m-w.com
>
> Main Entry: athe·ism
> Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
> godless, from a- + theos god
> 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
> 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
> no deity
>
> To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
> "disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix "doctrine"
> with theology you have "religion".
>
> The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
> Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
> with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone. Everyone
> is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it into
> politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in the USA
> **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.
>

I'm not saying there has to be a mix of religion and politics. But I am
saying the President is also a citizen, and welcome to practice his beliefs.

Personally, I would rather have a President with certain moral values
which are taught by religion. He could be Christian (my belief),
Jewish, Muslim or any of a number of different religions which share
those same core values. I'm not saying I would not vote for an atheist,
but it is one of the things I take into consideration when looking at
candidates.

Not to say all people who are religious follow those values - take
Clinton for example - getting caught with his pants down (literally).
That is something that I, as a Christian, have never done and will never
do, and I find that behavior abhorrent. My values are higher than that.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Erwin Moller wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Shelly wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>>
>>> ...and I'd much rather have a President! (That means someone who
>>> doesn't mix religion with politics - see the Bill of Rights for
>>> information).
>>>
>>
>> The Bill of Rights says nothing about whether the President may be
>> religious or not. All it says is that government can't pass laws
>> telling YOU how you must/must not worship.
>>
>> In fact, the Bill of Rights doesn't even say you can't display the 10
>> Commandments in a courthouse. But the courts have expanded the first
>> amendment far beyond it's original purpose. The Federalist Papers by
>> Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison is quite interesting
>> reading. It should how far we have strayed from the original intent.
>>
>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
>> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
>> atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>
> Atheism is a religion?
> Do you actually have any clue?
>

Yes, I do. It is a disbelief in a god, as Shelly pointed out from Websters.

> Please Jerry: I read this whole thread (my bad) and came to the
> conclusion you better stick with PHP.
> You can speak with some authority on PHP, but your worldview....
> It is dangerous singleminded dribble in my humble opinion.
>

Fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

> You showed (again) why most well thinking people in this world feel
> sorry for Americans who must live in the same country ruled by religious
> conservative antiscientific fundamentalists.
> I am sick of Bush and his clan, as is the whole free world.
>
> But I guess you simply don't give a damn, so Bushlike.
>

This has nothing to do with Bush. And no, I really don't give a damn
what you think of Bush.

>
> A few quotes for you:
> ************************************************
> "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never
> give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
>
> - Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).
> ************************************************
>
>
> ************************************************
> "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed
> myself from Christian assemblies."
>
> "Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."
>
> -Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor
> ************************************************
>
>
> ************************************************
> "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions,
> Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find
> religion encumbered with in these days?"
>
> "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
>
> "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no
> religion in it."
>
> -John Adams, U.S. President, Founding Father of the United States
> ************************************************
>

And what does any of that have to do with whether atheism is a religion
or not? Absolutely nothing.

>
> Erwin
>
>
>>
>> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way
>> and I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot
>> do, and I don't try to tell you the same.
>>



--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way
>> and I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot
>> do, and I don't try to tell you the same.
>
> The Constitution also only counted black people as 3/5 of a human.
>
> The genius of the constitution is that it's ammendable, and the Bill of
> Rights is just a bunch of ammendments - which can be repealed.
>
> It's time to let our tolerance of religious extremism go the way of our
> tolerance of slavery.
>
> --
> If 9/11 taught us nothing else, it's that religious zealots are
> /everybody's/ mortal enemy.

I agree. It's time to let our tolerance of those who won't let others
practice their own religion go the way of our tolerance of slavery.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Steve wrote:
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13evo8tqk97ip9c@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Steve" wrote in message
>> news:zZQHi.3$W76.2@newsfe12.lga...
>>> "Shelly" wrote in message
>>> news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> I LOVE that last statement. Down with the Unpatriot Act! Next year it
>>>> is "So long Bush, it's not been good to know ya".
>>> unless we go to war. in which case, he cannot be removed from office. ;^)
>> Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers
>> on the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January
>> 2009, he is [bad] history.
>
> as far as i can remember from history courses some time ago, there are two
> circumstances underwhich a president can occupy his seat for more that eight
> years (two-terms). first, is assumption of presidency via the demise of the
> encumbant...i.e. assassination, and then being re-elected for his ensuing
> term(s) for a total service time of 12 years. and, in the event of war a
> president's term may be extended beyond either of those periods of time (8
> and 12 years).
>

Incorrect. The 22nd Amendment states:

Sect. 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more
than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted
as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other
person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the
President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person
holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the
Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office
of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this
Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting
as President during the remainder of such term.

Sect. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of
its submission to the States by the Congress.


There is no exclusion for war.

> i may, however, no be recalling correctly on the latter. i'll have to check.
> scary if true though.
>
>


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:nNqdnZZZKfElX3LbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>> jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or atheism
>>> itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to ask, what
>>> scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with whatever
>>> 'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it indicate
>>> that she may want to have with us? as there is no objective evidence, i
>>> can only infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to do with us.
>>>
>> I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me. And I
>> feel sorry for you.
>
> oh my!
>
> i can see the romanticism in the idea of the things hoped for. that is the
> nature of humanity. however, to afix that to a god-figure and create a
> regiment of though/belief about that concept - one that rules your life and
> had such a huge and not always pleasant mark on the history of others
> lives - without proof or indications that say you seem to be correct...that
> is just scary!
>
> why is it that most rational people who go through their lives applying
> critical thinking to all aspects of their lives, negate or forbid themselves
> from doing the same with this one, special case - god? that is wholly beyond
> me!
>
> you go ahead and feel sorry for me. i hope you are serving the 'right' one,
> cuz all of the major religions now are quite exclusive in membership with
> eternal damnation for not joining. (he pauses to think...i wonder if jerry
> is going to come back with the good ol' pascal wager at this point...then
> chuckles to self)
>

Whatever. It's my belief. However, you can be assured if there is a
God, you will be in the wrong. At least I have a chance of practicing
the "correct" religion.

>>> as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions
>>> that atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad?
>>> mythra? zeus? buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this
>>> is the most i've ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing to
>>> do with afghanistan or iraq, but everything to do with domestic policy
>>> inacted after 911...and how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be moved
>>> and rallied under the banner of 'god' in leu of ration thought -
>>> especially thought that is critical of current events in light of
>>> history.
>>>
>>> give me an atheist about now, please!
>> I don't care what you believe in. However, when you try to impose your
>> religion on me, the President or anyone else, I draw the line.
>
> and the world shudders.
>
> why are christians so eager to say that but gaffaw when atheists, for the
> exact same reason, want to remove religious icons from mountainsides in
> california, or edicts greeting patrons of public places, or pray in schools?
> why is there a double standard?
>
>

You're the one setting the double standard - not allowing me to practice
my religion. What harm does a cross on a mountainside do to you if you
don't believe in any god? It's just a couple of pieces of wood, after
all. Or if I want to pray in school, why is it your right to say I can't?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>>> Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
>>> "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.
>>>
>>> Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.
>>
>> negative, ghost rider.
>>
>> 'a' latin: without
>> 'theism' latin: belief in god(s)
>>
>> try websters instead of your own opinion.
>>
>
> Which does not mean it is not a religion.

so that means it does?! come one jerry, you're more logical than that!


>> tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists
>> observe? where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that
>> resembles anything religious?
>>
>
> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
> belief.

i 'believe' i *observe no evidence* that would allow me to *logically* lead
to me to a conclusion that god exists.

that is a PROCESS and not a belief. it is called scientific method. i'm sure
your response will be that science, too, is a religion. just a prediction.
;^)


>> as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe
>> that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa
>> clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this
>> critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a
>> asanta-clausian?
>>
>
> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try to
> convince me my opinion is wrong.

sorry, religious people are in the *business* of converting. as for opinion?
we cannot both be right. and as you have NO evidence to support that there
is a god, the logical conclusion that should be drawn is that there, in
fact, is none. further, that our notions of god(s) evolve over time to match
our changing sophistication of thought is more proof for the idea that man
created god rather than vice versa. so much the case is this, that we have
nietche proclaiming that 'god is dead'!

> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
> screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.

well, you have proof that something respondse to you. what you infer about
that is up to you. however, you have *objective* evidence from which you can
draw such conclusions.

this is something no one can do for god. subjective evidence is as
interpretationally valid as the delusions of an insane person.

>> 'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a religion
>> make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would be the
>> start of religion.
>
> And you have a belief in the lack of a god.

negative ghost rider,

i have drawn the conclusion that god does not exist because there is NO
objective evidence that he does. one is a conclusion and the other, fact.
there is no belief in that equation.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:jtOdnUEcBZMqYXLbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Steve" wrote in message
>> news:gfPHi.28$zy3.22@newsfe02.lga...
>>>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
>>>> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
>>>> atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>>> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
>>> proper dictionary definition.
>>>
>>> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
>>
>> Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From
>> www.m-w.com
>>
>> Main Entry: athe·ism
>> Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
>> godless, from a- + theos god
>> 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
>> 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there
>> is no deity
>>
>> To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
>> "disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix
>> "doctrine" with theology you have "religion".
>>
>> The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
>> Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
>> with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone.
>> Everyone is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it
>> into politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in
>> the USA **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.
>>
>
> I'm not saying there has to be a mix of religion and politics. But I am
> saying the President is also a citizen, and welcome to practice his
> beliefs.
>
> Personally, I would rather have a President with certain moral values
> which are taught by religion. He could be Christian (my belief), Jewish,
> Muslim or any of a number of different religions which share those same
> core values. I'm not saying I would not vote for an atheist, but it is
> one of the things I take into consideration when looking at candidates.
>
> Not to say all people who are religious follow those values - take Clinton
> for example - getting caught with his pants down (literally). That is
> something that I, as a Christian, have never done and will never do, and I
> find that behavior abhorrent. My values are higher than that.

you are, intentionally or not, saying that atheists have no morals...or ones
that are substandard to religious orthodoxy. what a crock of shit!

if anything, i realize as an atheist that i don't get the luxury of an
afterlife, that my meaning is limited to this lifetime and what things i
engage in here and now. i have probably an even more profound sense of the
precious nature of life than do you, since i'm not getting another shot at
it...ever. my 'meaning' in life is found by helping others. that's it. it's
that simple. tell me that is something counter to ANY religion. if i base
all of my decisions on that singular premise, then i've met the core
requirements of ALL religions...and without any need of a god or gods as
impetous to do so.

take you pompous head out of your agitated sphinter, you close-minded,
superiority complexed bastard.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

..oO(Steve)

>i have drawn the conclusion that god does not exist because there is NO
>objective evidence that he does. [...]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and
without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could
not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by
your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that" and promply vanishes in
a puff of logic.

SCNR ;)
Micha

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>
> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also.

Only to religious people.

To atheists it is merely sidelining religion as irrelevant and getting
on with the job.

This is conveniently
> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom".

This is conveniently overlooked by those who cannot concieve of a person
who believes in nothing other than his sensory apparatus and what it
tells him.

> But many
> atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>

They can't. Atheism by definition is the absence of religion.

> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
> I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
> I don't try to tell you the same.
>

I don't worship.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
>>> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But
>>> many atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the
>>> country.
>>
>> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of
>> a proper dictionary definition.
>>
>> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
>>
>> that's all. i resent the implication that i am religious. i'm no more
>> religious for my lack of belief in god that i am for my lack of belief
>> in the toothfairy.
>>
>> at least when i lost my tooth as a child, there was proof of a
>> toothfairy...i always had a quarter under my pillow where my tooth had
>> been!
>>
>
> Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
> "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.
>
It isn't.


> Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.
>

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>>> Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not
>>> a "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.
>>>
>>> Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.
>>
>> negative, ghost rider.
>>
>> 'a' latin: without
>> 'theism' latin: belief in god(s)
>>
>> try websters instead of your own opinion.
>>
>
> Which does not mean it is not a religion.
>
>> tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists
>> observe? where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that
>> resembles anything religious?
>>
>
> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
> belief.
>

No. I profess no belief in god.
That is not a belief.

It is the absence of one.

I also profess no belief in leprechauns. Does that make me some kind of
religious person?

In fact there are thousands of things I do not believe, up to and
including that GW Bush is the reincarnation of Immelda Markos.

Like my non belief in god, the are simply not worth mentioning.

What religious people do not like at all, is that to an atheist, the
issue of whether god exists or not is simply irrelevant. Uninteresting
in the highest degree. Its useless to believe or disbelieve. It has
little objective effect either way.




>> as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to
>> believe that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than
>> for santa clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying
>> that this critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a
>> asanta-clausian?
>>
>
> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try
> to convince me my opinion is wrong.
>
> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
> screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.
>

Thats your problem, not mine.


>> 'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a
>> religion make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that
>> would be the start of religion.
>>
>
> And you have a belief in the lack of a god.
>

No, simply no belief in its existence. And no need to have or not have
the belief.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

>> Atheism is a religion?
>> Do you actually have any clue?
>>
>
> Yes, I do. It is a disbelief in a god, as Shelly pointed out from
> Websters.

perhaps you need several clues then!

i don't believe the toothfairy is real. am i religious now, being an
atoothfairian?

or, is this a special case because the word gawd is the object of disbelief?

>> Please Jerry: I read this whole thread (my bad) and came to the
>> conclusion you better stick with PHP.
>> You can speak with some authority on PHP, but your worldview....
>> It is dangerous singleminded dribble in my humble opinion.
>>
>
> Fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

hmmm...if we apply the scientific method to this, and since there is no
observable evidence god does exist...yep, i'd say his is more likely right
than not.

jerry, religion makes the claim god exists. atheist just don't believe them
until they provide evidence. it's the logical thing to do. for you making
the claim, it would only be responsible to provide such evidence so that we
needn't go back and forth.


>> A few quotes for you:
>> ************************************************
>> "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never
>> give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
>>
>> - Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).
>> ************************************************
>>
>>
>> ************************************************
>> "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed
>> myself from Christian assemblies."
>>
>> "Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."
>>
>> -Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor
>> ************************************************
>>
>>
>> ************************************************
>> "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions,
>> Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find
>> religion encumbered with in these days?"
>>
>> "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
>>
>> "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion
>> in it."
>>
>> -John Adams, U.S. President, Founding Father of the United States
>> ************************************************
>>
>
> And what does any of that have to do with whether atheism is a religion or
> not? Absolutely nothing.

it has everything to do with your gleeful delight that we have gawd-fearun
republukuns in the white house. i'd rather just have a president.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:296dnbguHfUsYnLbnZ2dnUVZ_tOtnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Shelly" wrote in message
>> news:13evo8tqk97ip9c@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "Steve" wrote in message
>>> news:zZQHi.3$W76.2@newsfe12.lga...
>>>> "Shelly" wrote in message
>>>> news:13evj6rp3fkov7f@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> I LOVE that last statement. Down with the Unpatriot Act! Next year
>>>>> it is "So long Bush, it's not been good to know ya".
>>>> unless we go to war. in which case, he cannot be removed from office.
>>>> ;^)
>>> Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers
>>> on the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January
>>> 2009, he is [bad] history.
>>
>> as far as i can remember from history courses some time ago, there are
>> two circumstances underwhich a president can occupy his seat for more
>> that eight years (two-terms). first, is assumption of presidency via the
>> demise of the encumbant...i.e. assassination, and then being re-elected
>> for his ensuing term(s) for a total service time of 12 years. and, in the
>> event of war a president's term may be extended beyond either of those
>> periods of time (8 and 12 years).
>>
>
> Incorrect. The 22nd Amendment states:

yeah, and didn't you see that shelly and i already discussed that?

please jerry, if you're going to just jump in there...at least keep up.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:jtOdnUMcBZMYY3LbnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> The first amendment had to do with TOLERANCE. You worship your way and
>>> I worship mine. You don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do, and
>>> I don't try to tell you the same.
>>
>> The Constitution also only counted black people as 3/5 of a human.
>>
>> The genius of the constitution is that it's ammendable, and the Bill of
>> Rights is just a bunch of ammendments - which can be repealed.
>>
>> It's time to let our tolerance of religious extremism go the way of our
>> tolerance of slavery.
>>
>> --
>> If 9/11 taught us nothing else, it's that religious zealots are
>> /everybody's/ mortal enemy.
>
> I agree. It's time to let our tolerance of those who won't let others
> practice their own religion go the way of our tolerance of slavery.

but atheism is on the fence. it is a religion...but not. so therefore, let's
say they have substandard morals and tell them to fuck off when they say
seperation of church and state and want religious dogma removed from public
places and want prayer out of schools. yeah, they don't count. tolerance
only goes to 'full-blooded' 'american' religions.

lol.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:296dnbsuHfXCnW3bnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:nNqdnZZZKfElX3LbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>>> jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or
>>>> atheism itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i have to
>>>> ask, what scientific evidence do you have that god exists. and, with
>>>> whatever 'evidence' you may provide, what kind of relationship does it
>>>> indicate that she may want to have with us? as there is no objective
>>>> evidence, i can only infer that if a god exists, she wants nothing to
>>>> do with us.
>>>>
>>> I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me. And
>>> I feel sorry for you.
>>
>> oh my!
>>
>> i can see the romanticism in the idea of the things hoped for. that is
>> the nature of humanity. however, to afix that to a god-figure and create
>> a regiment of though/belief about that concept - one that rules your life
>> and had such a huge and not always pleasant mark on the history of others
>> lives - without proof or indications that say you seem to be
>> correct...that is just scary!
>>
>> why is it that most rational people who go through their lives applying
>> critical thinking to all aspects of their lives, negate or forbid
>> themselves from doing the same with this one, special case - god? that is
>> wholly beyond me!
>>
>> you go ahead and feel sorry for me. i hope you are serving the 'right'
>> one, cuz all of the major religions now are quite exclusive in membership
>> with eternal damnation for not joining. (he pauses to think...i wonder if
>> jerry is going to come back with the good ol' pascal wager at this
>> point...then chuckles to self)
>>
>
> Whatever. It's my belief. However, you can be assured if there is a God,
> you will be in the wrong. At least I have a chance of practicing the
> "correct" religion.

I KNEW IT...I CALLED IT...I TOLD YOU IT WAS COMING!!!

PASCAL'S WAGER !!!

and no, we have exactly the SAME changes of being right. you really should
research theology more before committing one of the most basic, stupid, and
flawed logical arguments passed throughout history. (as jerry now beings to
google, red in the face from embarrassment once he sees what the fuck he
just did).


>>>> as for your assumption that god-fearers somehow make better decisions
>>>> that atheists...hardly the case. what god shall we fear? muhammad?
>>>> mythra? zeus? buddah? the big jc? as an american and a republican, this
>>>> is the most i've ever feared for democracy in america...it has nothing
>>>> to do with afghanistan or iraq, but everything to do with domestic
>>>> policy inacted after 911...and how easily a 'god-fearing' people can be
>>>> moved and rallied under the banner of 'god' in leu of ration thought -
>>>> especially thought that is critical of current events in light of
>>>> history.
>>>>
>>>> give me an atheist about now, please!
>>> I don't care what you believe in. However, when you try to impose your
>>> religion on me, the President or anyone else, I draw the line.
>>
>> and the world shudders.
>>
>> why are christians so eager to say that but gaffaw when atheists, for the
>> exact same reason, want to remove religious icons from mountainsides in
>> california, or edicts greeting patrons of public places, or pray in
>> schools? why is there a double standard?
>
> You're the one setting the double standard - not allowing me to practice
> my religion. What harm does a cross on a mountainside do to you if you
> don't believe in any god? It's just a couple of pieces of wood, after
> all. Or if I want to pray in school, why is it your right to say I can't?

practice all you want, but don't ask me to pay for it with the taxes used to
propogate it in public. go off to church and do that shit in private...not
in the public sector. the harm is that a cross on a mountainside, if paid
with public funds, is favoring and sponsoring religion. do you ever read?
how about the federalist papers? madison? what harm? fucking get a clue!

if you want to pray in school, go ahead. the problem is when a person paid
by the state says, 'now it is time to pray'. surely you're not that stupid!

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Michael Fesser" wrote in message
news:qb00f3500okec8fg40jog9bsvfb1c1fnrb@4ax.com...
> .oO(Steve)
>
>>i have drawn the conclusion that god does not exist because there is NO
>>objective evidence that he does. [...]
>
> "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and
> without faith I am nothing."
>
> "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could
> not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by
> your own arguments, you don't. QED."
>
> "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that" and promply vanishes in
> a puff of logic.
>
> SCNR ;)
> Micha

roflmao!!!

i have to pass that one on.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Steve" wrote in message
news:uxSHi.41$W76.18@newsfe12.lga...
> perhaps i heard it wrong. i'll have to look into where i did hear that.
> now my interest is peaked.

Sorry to nitpick, but while your interest may, indeed, have reached a "high
level", I believe it has "piqued". :-)

Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...

> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
> belief.

A "belief" does not a religion make. A belief, couple with religious dogma
and practices makes a religion.

>
>> as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe
>> that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa
>> clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this
>> critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a
>> asanta-clausian?
>>
>
> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try to
> convince me my opinion is wrong.

Scientifically speaking, there is no experimental evidence for the existence
of a god. It is a pure faith statement to assert the existence of god. You
can hold your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it scientifically
without foundation. (Reminder: I, personally, believe in the existence of
God as a matter of faith)

>
> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
> screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.
>
>> 'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a religion
>> make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would be the
>> start of religion.
>
> And you have a belief in the lack of a god.

So? It still isn't a religion.

Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13f07nvm1b461ac@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
>> belief.
>
> A "belief" does not a religion make. A belief, couple with religious
> dogma and practices makes a religion.

i agree with where you're going, but being logical, the definition of
religion cannot contain religion as part of its definition. ;^) your point
wasn't lost though.

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:jtOdnUEcBZMqYXLbnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Shelly wrote:
>> "Steve" wrote in message
>> news:gfPHi.28$zy3.22@newsfe02.lga...
>>>> And BTW - atheism is a religion, also. This is conveniently
>>>> "overlooked" by those espousing it in the name of "freedom". But many
>>>> atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of the country.
>>> if you're not an atheist, don't presume to know what it is outside of a
>>> proper dictionary definition.
>>>
>>> atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
>>
>> Sorry, Steve, but you have to give the devil his due here. From
>> www.m-w.com
>>
>> Main Entry: athe·ism
>> Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos
>> godless, from a- + theos god
>> 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
>> 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there
>> is no deity
>>
>> To me those are declarative statements and not passive ones. It is a
>> "disbelief" rather than a "lack of belief". Also, when you mix
>> "doctrine" with theology you have "religion".
>>
>> The point though that Jerry is trying to make is totally wrong, however.
>> Having an atheist in there, and not allowing mixing of standard religion
>> with politics is NOT forcing the "religion" of atheism on anyone.
>> Everyone is free to believe and practice as they wish -- just not mix it
>> into politics. My earlier statement of the flourishing of religion in
>> the USA **BECAUSE** of the separation and freedom goes to that point.
>>
>
> I'm not saying there has to be a mix of religion and politics. But I am
> saying the President is also a citizen, and welcome to practice his
> beliefs.

....and noone is agruing against that point.

>
> Personally, I would rather have a President with certain moral values
> which are taught by religion. He could be Christian (my belief),

....and they are taught by society as well.

> Jewish, Muslim or any of a number of different religions which share those
> same core values. I'm not saying I would not vote for an atheist, but it
> is one of the things I take into consideration when looking at candidates.

Well, do what you want (obviously) and you if you take such irrelevencies as
being religious into account you may well get stuck again with crap like we
have now in office.

> Not to say all people who are religious follow those values - take

You got that one right! The list in interminable of such hypocrites.

> Clinton for example - getting caught with his pants down (literally).

He disgraced the office with his sexual behavior. Otherwise, he was an
excellent president. We had prosperity and low inflation. We were at
peace. He put in that wonderful excemption for the profits (largely due to
infaltion) on the sale of your primary home. He failed on health care. All
in all, he was pretty good. I voted for him once and against him once. I'd
take him again in a heartbeat over the power maniac in office now who has
sent over 3,000 young Americans to their deaths in a war that can't be won
and for an ever-shifting raison d'etre.

> That is something that I, as a Christian, have never done and will never
> do, and I find that behavior abhorrent. My values are higher than that.

You are still a virgin? (Sorry, couldn't resist that one. I understand
what you meant to say).

Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:296dnbsuHfXCnW3bnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com...
> You're the one setting the double standard - not allowing me to practice
> my religion. What harm does a cross on a mountainside do to you if you
> don't believe in any god? It's just a couple of pieces of wood, after

There is no harm in a cross being on a mountainside -- just NOT on public
property nor paid for by taxes.

> all. Or if I want to pray in school, why is it your right to say I can't?

You can, silently. The school just can organize it nor say this is the time
for it.

Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

"Steve" wrote in message
news:0jVHi.56$W76.42@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13f07nvm1b461ac@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
>>> belief.
>>
>> A "belief" does not a religion make. A belief, couple with religious
>> dogma and practices makes a religion.
>
> i agree with where you're going, but being logical, the definition of
> religion cannot contain religion as part of its definition. ;^) your point
> wasn't lost though.

A belief couple with dogma and practices relating to desires and
existence -- or noexistence -- of a deity makes a religion. Better?
Irrelevency does not constitute dogma and practices.

Shelly

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>>> Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not a
>>>> "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.
>>>>
>>>> Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.
>>> negative, ghost rider.
>>>
>>> 'a' latin: without
>>> 'theism' latin: belief in god(s)
>>>
>>> try websters instead of your own opinion.
>>>
>> Which does not mean it is not a religion.
>
> so that means it does?! come one jerry, you're more logical than that!
>

Who cares what the Latin roots mean? It's today's current usage that
counts.

>
>>> tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists
>>> observe? where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that
>>> resembles anything religious?
>>>
>> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
>> belief.
>
> i 'believe' i *observe no evidence* that would allow me to *logically* lead
> to me to a conclusion that god exists.
>

And it results in a belief. Or, more accurately, a disbelief.

200 years ago there was no proof that microbes existed. 150 years ago
there was no proof that radio waves existed. 100 years ago there was no
proof that atoms existed. So by your logic, since there was no proof,
these things didn't exist.


> that is a PROCESS and not a belief. it is called scientific method. i'm sure
> your response will be that science, too, is a religion. just a prediction.
> ;^)
>

The scientific method deals with proving or disproving the existence of
something - a physical item, a behavior, etc. But according to the
scientific method, lack of proof one way or the other does not mean
something does or does not exist.

>
>>> as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe
>>> that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa
>>> clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this
>>> critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a
>>> asanta-clausian?
>>>
>> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try to
>> convince me my opinion is wrong.
>
> sorry, religious people are in the *business* of converting. as for opinion?

That is a gross overgeneralization.

> we cannot both be right. and as you have NO evidence to support that there
> is a god, the logical conclusion that should be drawn is that there, in
> fact, is none. further, that our notions of god(s) evolve over time to match
> our changing sophistication of thought is more proof for the idea that man
> created god rather than vice versa. so much the case is this, that we have
> nietche proclaiming that 'god is dead'!
>

Faulty logic.

>> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
>> screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
>> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.
>
> well, you have proof that something respondse to you. what you infer about
> that is up to you. however, you have *objective* evidence from which you can
> draw such conclusions.
>

I have proof that letters appear on my screen. Period. Nothing more,
nothing less. I have no idea what the source of those characters are.

> this is something no one can do for god. subjective evidence is as
> interpretationally valid as the delusions of an insane person.
>
>>> 'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a religion
>>> make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would be the
>>> start of religion.
>> And you have a belief in the lack of a god.
>
> negative ghost rider,
>
> i have drawn the conclusion that god does not exist because there is NO
> objective evidence that he does. one is a conclusion and the other, fact.
> there is no belief in that equation.
>
>

That's fine. That's your opinion. But do not try to convince me that
you are right and I am wrong. And don't try to stop me from practicing
my religion.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>>>> Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is
>>>> not a "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.
>>>>
>>>> Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.
>>>
>>> negative, ghost rider.
>>>
>>> 'a' latin: without
>>> 'theism' latin: belief in god(s)
>>>
>>> try websters instead of your own opinion.
>>>
>>
>> Which does not mean it is not a religion.
>>
>>> tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists
>>> observe? where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that
>>> resembles anything religious?
>>>
>>
>> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
>> belief.
>>
>
> No. I profess no belief in god.
> That is not a belief.
>
> It is the absence of one.
>

So you profess a belief in no god. A disbelief is also a belief.

> I also profess no belief in leprechauns. Does that make me some kind of
> religious person?
>

Leprechauns are not gods.

> In fact there are thousands of things I do not believe, up to and
> including that GW Bush is the reincarnation of Immelda Markos.
>
> Like my non belief in god, the are simply not worth mentioning.
>
> What religious people do not like at all, is that to an atheist, the
> issue of whether god exists or not is simply irrelevant. Uninteresting
> in the highest degree. Its useless to believe or disbelieve. It has
> little objective effect either way.
>
>

I really don't care one way or the other what you think. Your religious
views are your own. Just don't infringe on my right to believe as I choose.

>
>
>>> as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to
>>> believe that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than
>>> for santa clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying
>>> that this critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a
>>> asanta-clausian?
>>>
>>
>> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't
>> try to convince me my opinion is wrong.
>>
>> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on
>> my screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
>> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.
>>
>
> Thats your problem, not mine.
>

Not a problem at all.

>
>>> 'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a
>>> religion make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that
>>> would be the start of religion.
>>>
>>
>> And you have a belief in the lack of a god.
>>
>
> No, simply no belief in its existence. And no need to have or not have
> the belief.

Same idea, different words.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Shelly wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
>> belief.
>
> A "belief" does not a religion make. A belief, couple with religious dogma
> and practices makes a religion.
>

Ceremonies and rites do not make a religion. A belief (or lack thereof)
in a higher power is what determines religion.

I can still be a Christian if I don't go to church, don't take
communion, get married by a judge... My beliefs are what make me one.

>>> as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe
>>> that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa
>>> clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this
>>> critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a
>>> asanta-clausian?
>>>
>> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try to
>> convince me my opinion is wrong.
>
> Scientifically speaking, there is no experimental evidence for the existence
> of a god. It is a pure faith statement to assert the existence of god. You
> can hold your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it scientifically
> without foundation. (Reminder: I, personally, believe in the existence of
> God as a matter of faith)
>
>> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
>> screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
>> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you do.
>>
>>> 'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a religion
>>> make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would be the
>>> start of religion.
>> And you have a belief in the lack of a god.
>
> So? It still isn't a religion.
>
> Shelly
>
>


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: OT - Oh, so OT.

Shelly wrote:
> "Steve" wrote in message

>> unless we go to war. in which case, he cannot be removed from office. ;^)
>
> Where did that come from? I don't believe there are any such qualifiers on
> the two-term limit for the presidency. Come the middle of January 2009, he
> is [bad] history.

He's just trying to get a rise out of you.
It seems that most of the folks of good character, but bad judgment have
abandoned Bush. The few who remain on Bush's side, do so anonymously
and out of bad character.