Call for a moderator of REC.WOODWORK

In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I nominate Cthulu. Or Beezelbub.

Pan or Dionysis would be more fun... Even Thor, who at least has a
hammer!

djb

--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area
Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> Every run across a sane person who agreed with your
> attitudes and behavior??

I invoke Formosa's Law.

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/Formosas-Law.html>

djb

--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?

In article <BC4DC6E2.3B62%[email protected]>, BM Cooper
<[email protected]> wrote:

> (He's a regular poster though, right?)

He's a regular *sumpthin*, that's for sure!

djb

--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?

In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:

> What about Druids or other nature based religions, they have to do with
> wood(s).

Do they weigh the same as a duck?

djb

--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?

In article <[email protected]>, codepath
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Jimmy Swaggart
> Jim and Tammy Faye Baker
> Pat Robertson
> Jerry Falwell
>
> Doesn't this make you think that Heaven would be a very annoying place to
> be?

What makes you think they'll be there?

djb

--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?

In article <[email protected]>, codepath
<[email protected]> wrote:

> So, how shall I exit this thread. I could use Godwin's Law
> (http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html) and compare Mike
> Z. (and his ilk) to Hitler and the Nazi's jack-booted Gestapo propaganda
> machine which should end the thread completely.

No, the codicil clearly says that won't work.

djb

--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?

In article <[email protected]>, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Have you ever met a duck that weighed 200 pounds?

What wood was it made from?

Geez... Doesn't anyone 'round here watch Python?

;-)

djb

--
Is it time to change my sig line yet?

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mike Zuchick states:
>
> >--
> >In His Name, be Blessed,
> >
> >I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
> >
> >God Bless,
>
> Not unless we get one that doesn't allow religous expression.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold." Mark Twain
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html

That seems somewhat intolerant. I suggest that we get one that does not allow Mark Twain quotes. How do you like that?

--
Al Reid

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Al Reid wrote:
> > That seems somewhat intolerant. I suggest that we get one that does not allow Mark Twain quotes. How do you like that?
>
> It's easy to ignore a sig line that is where it is supposed to be.
> Putting it in everybodies' face is the problem, and what was being
> pointed out.
> Dave in Fairfax
> --
> reply-to doesn't work
> use:
> daveldr at att dot net
> American Association of Woodturners
> http://www.woodturner.org
> Capital Area Woodturners
> http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Dave,

Look as my sig line ;^} Ah, never mind!

--
Al Reid

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain

John Grossbohlin wrote:

> on-line 24/7, or who feel compelled to add tag-lines or commentary to
> everything crossing the group, or who burn up bandwidth nagging everyone
> about message formatting and etiquette. ;-)

You've been there too, I see. Bleah. Moderators suck.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
<blah blah blah snipped>
>

TROLL TROLL TROLL you boat....man a lot of troll bait these days...

oops i fed another one... my bad (Sorry dave)

Myx

Mike Zuchick <[email protected]> wrote:

How much does the job pay?

David Hall <[email protected]> wrote:

> Brian Henderson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:52:18 GMT, "Mike Zuchick"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >In His Name, be Blessed,
> > >
> > >Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
> > >perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
> > >seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?
> >
> > No, most of us outgrew the need for invisible friends years ago. Let
> > us know when you grow up.
>
> Brian, you may want to speak for yourself. If most recent studies are
> to be believed, "most of us", meaning a large majority of people in
> the US (and yes I know this group is not limited to the US)do believe
> in a supreme being. Be they Christian, Jew, Muslim or any of a host of
> other religions, they believe in a god. While many may not be as up
> front about it as Mike, you cannot pretend that you, as an apparent
> non-believer, are in some sort of majority. So I guess "most" of us
> have not outgrown the "need for invisible friends" as you so
> elequently put it.

I think if Mike can post his religious views and offend with them then
Brian should be accorded the same courtesy. And over here in the post
christian parts of the planet the 'most of us' does seem to be fairly
correct. Though it does depend on how the question is phrased.

Peter

David Hall <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Peter Ashby) wrote in message
> news:<1g8y4sc.fl3egt1380a1pN%[email protected]>... > David Hall
> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Brian Henderson
> <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> news:<[email protected]>... > > > On Mon, 09 Feb
> 2004 20:52:18 GMT, "Mike Zuchick" > > > <[email protected]>
> wrote: > > > > > > >In His Name, be Blessed, > > > > > > > >Everyone seems
> to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the > > > >perverts post
> what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and > > > >seem
> to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here? > > > > > >
> No, most of us outgrew the need for invisible friends years ago. Let > >
> > us know when you grow up. > > > > Brian, you may want to speak for
> yourself. If most recent studies are > > to be believed, "most of us",
> meaning a large majority of people in > > the US (and yes I know this
> group is not limited to the US)do believe > > in a supreme being. Be they
> Christian, Jew, Muslim or any of a host of > > other religions, they
> believe in a god. While many may not be as up > > front about it as Mike,
> you cannot pretend that you, as an apparent > > non-believer, are in some
> sort of majority. So I guess "most" of us > > have not outgrown the "need
> for invisible friends" as you so > > elequently put it. > > I think if
> Mike can post his religious views and offend with them then > Brian should
> be accorded the same courtesy. And over here in the post > christian parts
> of the planet the 'most of us' does seem to be fairly > correct. Though it
> does depend on how the question is phrased. > > Peter
>
>
> Well, I have no problem with Brian posting his views (and I am not
> offended by them or by Mike's), however, he made a statement of fact that
> I do not believe is true. He stated as a fact that "most of us outgrew the
> need for invisible friends years ago" which I believe the context clearly
> meant that most of us do not believe in a supreme being. I do believe that
> most of "us" as well as most of "you" (i.e. people in the UK) do believe
> in a supreme being (i.e. an "invisable friend"). Now Brian can have a
> problem with Mike, he can have a problem with religion, he can be agnostic
> or he can be a devil worshiper and it is no concern of mine and I could
> not care less (no staining of cherry though - that is a true religious
> issue). However, if he wants to state as a fact that most people do not
> believe in a god, then I can state that this is incorrect. BTW if the UK
> is so "post christian" why is it one of the few places on earth where
> there are still violent clashes between different christian sects that
> can't seem to be resolved? Post-Christians shouldn't act that way, they
> should have violent clashes over something different than whether you are
> Catholic or Protestant.

You think most of these people are christians? No, they use their
supposed religion as tribal markers, nothing more. The role of religion
in this is to preserve the tribes by making the otherwise inevitable
intermarriage of two such close communities very difficult. We saw the
same thing happen in the Balkans between orthodox christians, catholics
and moslems. How else do you explain the lack of integration? I doubt if
many of the protagonists were particularly devout, the religion doesn't
enter at that point of the divide, it is earlier and more insidious. The
Balkans were a warning to all of us.

Also here in post christian Scotland (don't believe me? ask the Church
of Scotland, it was their admission) we have ritualised outlets for
sectarian tensions, it's called fitba.

Peter

Brian Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:13:15 GMT, [email protected] (Peter
> Ashby) wrote:
>
> >I think if Mike can post his religious views and offend with them then
> >Brian should be accorded the same courtesy. And over here in the post
> >christian parts of the planet the 'most of us' does seem to be fairly
> >correct. Though it does depend on how the question is phrased.
>
> It has nothing to do with courtesy, it has to do with someone's
> religious spam being tossed around a newsgroup where it doesn't
> belong, after he's been politely been asked to cut it out, or at least
> modify it to follow the posting standard. Mike doesn't give a damn
> what anyone else thinks.

the courtesy bit was me being a bit facetious Brian, the context had not
passed me by.

Peter

Frank McVey <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Peter Ashby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1g8yj0y.6jjx54159y71wN%[email protected]...
>
> <snip of previous diatribes>
>
> > You think most of these people are christians? No, they use their
> > supposed religion as tribal markers, nothing more. The role of religion
> > in this is to preserve the tribes by making the otherwise inevitable
> > intermarriage of two such close communities very difficult. We saw the
> > same thing happen in the Balkans between orthodox christians, catholics
> > and moslems. How else do you explain the lack of integration? I doubt if
> > many of the protagonists were particularly devout, the religion doesn't
> > enter at that point of the divide, it is earlier and more insidious. The
> > Balkans were a warning to all of us.
> >
> > Also here in post christian Scotland (don't believe me? ask the Church
> > of Scotland, it was their admission) we have ritualised outlets for
> > sectarian tensions, it's called fitba.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Hi, Peter,
>
> If I can remember my Hamish Imlach, he had something to say on that score in
> "The Derry and Cumberland Boys":-
>
> The Derry Boys are Roman Catholics
> Tae the Mass they've been once or twice,
> And Parkheid is their new Jerusalem,
> And Jock Stein's their latter-day Christ.
>
> The Cumbie boys are devout Christians,
> They're awfy religious ye see,
> Their language it too is religious:
> "Oh ma Goad", "Jesus Christ", "FTP!"
>
> When asked what they think o religion
> They'll say "Aw religions aw right"
> But these guys are only religious
> When they want an excuse for a fight
>
> So don't wear a green scarf in Brigton
> Or a blue scarf in Cumberland Street
> Unless yer name's Mohammed Ali,
> Or yer helluva quick on yer feet!
>
> I'd agree that a lot of it is simply tribal, but, equally, a lot of it in NI
> is down to organised crime - the Godfathers on both sides are doing quite
> nicely out of the Troubles. Nocht tae dae wi' releegion or Freedum Frae The
> Saxon Oppressor at a'.
>
> For our friends in the US, remember that last bit when someone shaking a
> collection tin in a bar asks you to contribute to NORAID or the UVF....

Lovely poem Frank thanks. I thought Noraid etc had gone the way of all
things in the war on terrurrrr?

Peter

Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Why are all Popes ancient old white men firmly rooted in the past and bent
> >on perpetuating antiquated notions of the world and not willing to make any
> >real progress?
>
> Because even though the world has changed (and not necessarily for the better,
> either; change isn't always synonymous with progress), what's right and moral
> and true remains the same.

Which is why the church has changed its mind on: celibate priests, the
truth of heliocentrism, papal infallibility, the divinity of Mary, and
recently even evolution.

Meanwhile western society has decided that loving, consensual
relationships between adults are just fine, not going to church on the
sabbath will not result in terrible things, just more snuggle time with
your consenting adult partner on Sunday mornings. Also that saying 'god
will provide' does not alleviate the poverty caused by too many mouths
to feed, so planning those mouths makes sense.

So iow the church does change its mind on what is right and true and as
for moral, recent revelations on covering up paedophile priests, all
around the world have rather dented any moral authority.

Peter

Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <1g908tb.psc5dpwoafkiN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> >Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>>> >Why are all Popes ancient old white men firmly rooted in the past
and bent
>>> >on perpetuating antiquated notions of the world and not willing to
make any
>>> >real progress?
> >>
> >> Because even though the world has changed (and not necessarily for the
> > better,
>>> either; change isn't always synonymous with progress), what's right
and moral
> >> and true remains the same.
> >
> >Which is why the church has changed its mind on: celibate priests, the
> >truth of heliocentrism, papal infallibility, the divinity of Mary, and
> >recently even evolution.
> >
> Sorry, but you're quite mistaken. One at a time:
>
> Priestly celibacy is a practice in certain parts of the Catholic Church, most
> predominantly in the Roman Rite. It forms *no*part* of Church *doctrine*,
> that is, the Church's teaching on faith and morals. Other Rites within the
> Catholic Church allow their priests to marry.
>
> Heliocentrism likewise is not part of the Church's teaching on faith and
> morals, and never was.

I have noticed that you have changed the terms under discussion. Nowhere
above did you restrict the point to the church's teachin on faith and
morals. If you are going to redefine the subject in order to defend
something then I will have to conclude there is no point in engaging in
debate with you.

Peter

Mike Zuchick states:

>--
>In His Name, be Blessed,
>
>I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>
>God Bless,

Not unless we get one that doesn't allow religous expression.

Charlie Self
"Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold." Mark Twain

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html

On 09 Feb 2004 18:06:08 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
brought forth from the murky depths:

>Mike Zuchick states:
>>--
>>In His Name, be Blessed,
>>
>>I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>>
>>God Bless,
>
>Not unless we get one that doesn't allow religous expression.

The Zoo Chick's posts would be the first to be moderated.
[He IS consistent (totally irrational) in his thoughts, eh?]


--
Impeach 'em ALL!
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

Seeing how this thread has "migrated" in topic, now I feel like we _do_
need a moderator!

--
gabriel

Thanks for posting. You sliped out of my killfile somehow. Got ya.

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> --
> In His Name, be Blessed,
>
> I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>
> God Bless,
>
> Mike
>
>
> www.scrollsaw-works.com
>
>

"Mark" wrote in message

> > The Church neither teaches nor believes that Mary is in any way divine,
and it
> > never has.

> Then I go to a Catholic church and see people praying to statues.
Specifically
> those of Mary.
>
> And now you say she is in no way divine? Never has been?
>
> I guess it's ok to pray to statues as long as their Catholic statues.
>
>
> And lets not forget, celibacy came about to protect Church property.

Hey, as a hungry kid I was damn well guaranteed a place in hottest Hell
every time I ate meat on Friday when there was nothing else at the public
school cafeteria ... then suddenly one day it was OK, and all that
childhood angst was for nought!

And to think of the countless hours we kids spent mandatorily praying those
poor souls out of purgatory, not to mention the cost of lighting all those
damn candles so Father Brady could smoke Cuban cigars and feed his Tennesee
Walking horse alfalfa.

That's about the time I figured that organized religion being the sole
guarantor of my salvation was a crock.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/05/04

In article <1g908tb.psc5dpwoafkiN%[email protected]>, [email protected] (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Why are all Popes ancient old white men firmly rooted in the past and bent
>> >on perpetuating antiquated notions of the world and not willing to make any
>> >real progress?
>>
>> Because even though the world has changed (and not necessarily for the
> better,
>> either; change isn't always synonymous with progress), what's right and moral
>> and true remains the same.
>
>Which is why the church has changed its mind on: celibate priests, the
>truth of heliocentrism, papal infallibility, the divinity of Mary, and
>recently even evolution.
>
Sorry, but you're quite mistaken. One at a time:

Priestly celibacy is a practice in certain parts of the Catholic Church, most
predominantly in the Roman Rite. It forms *no*part* of Church *doctrine*,
that is, the Church's teaching on faith and morals. Other Rites within the
Catholic Church allow their priests to marry.

Heliocentrism likewise is not part of the Church's teaching on faith and
morals, and never was.

The Church has *always* taught that the pronouncements of the Pope on matters
of faith are infallible. That has never changed.

The Church neither teaches nor believes that Mary is in any way divine, and it
never has.

Evolution, like heliocentrism, is not and never has been any part of the
Church's teaching on faith and morals. And the only change in the Church's
position on evolution has been from a "wait and see" attitude a hundred years
ago, to the statement by the Pope a few years ago that evolution by natural
selection is not in conflict with Church doctrine. Simply summarized, the
Church's position in this regard is that the Bible says God created the earth
and everything in it, but doesn't specify exactly how, nor how long it took.
Those are questions of science, not of faith and morals.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Saudade wrote:
> Mike Zuchick <[email protected]> typed:
> >I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
> I don't. Are you volunteering?
> Also, I agree with Gabriel regarding your sig. Please put the body of your
> post PRIOR to your sig so that it gets quoted easily.

That's rich, Mike Zuchick calling for a moderator. I'm glad I turned
off my killfile to check what I was missing.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Al Reid wrote:
> That seems somewhat intolerant. I suggest that we get one that does not allow Mark Twain quotes. How do you like that?

It's easy to ignore a sig line that is where it is supposed to be.
Putting it in everybodies' face is the problem, and what was being
pointed out.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

On 09 Feb 2004 18:06:08 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:

>Not unless we get one that doesn't allow religous expression.

How about, political affiliation, race, class and creed?
Further, will the moderators be Netcops?





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Other than the fact that your good buddy got nailed to it, what's it got to
do with woodworking?

OTOH, if we were discussing the cross' joinery, that'd be different.


codepath

--
Sigs belong here.






"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In His Name, be Blessed,
>
> Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
> perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
> seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?
>
> God Bless,
>
> Mike
>
>
> www.scrollsaw-works.com
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Mike
> Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > First off, Mike, fix the way you post -- put the body of your post
*above*
> > your sig so it gets quoted properly when someone replies.
> >
> > Second, no, I don't think it's time for a moderator. There's so much
> diversity
> > of opinion here on the ON-topic issues that get people wound up
(SawStop,
> for
> > example), to say nothing of the OFF-topic ones, that it would be
> difficult, if
> > not impossible, to find a sufficiently impartial, objective individual
to
> > serve as moderator.
> >
> > Third, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of posts in the last six
> or
> > eight months describing various methods of filtering out the garbage. I
> don't
> > see any of the crap _at_all_ unless I look at Nfilter's "dropped
articles"
> > list. I suggest you give Nfilter a try. It will make your newsgroup
> experience
> > much more pleasant.
> >
> > FWIW, I wish Google would fix their "Safe Search" filtering so it looks
at
> the
> > *titles* of the posts as well as their content. As it stands, a post
with
> an
> > offensive title and innocuous content passes the filter. I've complained
> to
> > Google about this, but so far to no avail.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
> >
> > How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for
> Miss America?
>
>

Adding "Mike Zuchick" to my news filter.


"Mike Iglesias" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mike Zuchick <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>
> Given the several hundred postings/day on this newsgroup, I think you're
> going to be hard pressed to find someone who has enough time to moderate
> this newsgroup.
>
> Get some kind of kill-file add-on for the newsreader you are using,
> or use the built-in stuff if your newsreader already has it.
>
> --
> Mike Iglesias Email:
[email protected]
> University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926
> Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069

Al Reid wrote:
> Look as my sig line ;^} Ah, never mind!

I get it, my leg came off in your hand. FWIW, I agree entirely. It's
the placement issue that was bothering me though, I don't care about his
beliefs, just his placement.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Ditto.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]
"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:42:27 GMT, "Mike Zuchick"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I hate trolls, but I also don't like moderated newsgroups.
>
> My vote is No.
>
> Barry

Mike Zuchick <[email protected]> wrote:

: In His Name, be Blessed,

: Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
: perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
: seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?

: God Bless,

: Mike

If you actually PUT it in a sig line, no one would be complaining. The
problem is that it's NOT in a sig line.



--- Gregg

My woodworking projects:


Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm



"Improvise, adapt, overcome."
[email protected]
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

Frank Ketchum wrote:
> No, Mike. What you should think about is that if this group were properly
> moderated, we would never see any posts from you.

Good Point! By the man a beer.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

But this is a woodworking group. So, unless your "Supreme Being" is David
Marks or Norm Abram, then the mere mention of "any" idol or icon is off
topic.

I personally do not believe in any supernatural phenomenon such as
disembodied spirits, ghosts, or poltergeists. But, even if I did, any
mention of that in this group is out of place. This group is for discussions
of or relating to woodworking. Period. Pushing any religion is bad taste.
Religion is every bit as off topic here as pornography as neither have
anything to do with woodworking.

Even more, it's pointless. Those who are religious, more than likely,
already have a chosen faith and therefore do not need "saving" or
"converting". And those who don't will not be swayed into it just because
some knucklehead put it in the signature of a news post. In fact, my wife is
a recovering Catholic and she finds it offensive to post off topic as well.

But in the end, I don't care either way as long as the format of the message
is correct per the de facto standards of Usenet.

[BODY OF MESSAGE]
[SIGNATURE]

I don't even care about the mentioned use of double-hyphens (--).


codepath




"David Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brian Henderson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:52:18 GMT, "Mike Zuchick"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >In His Name, be Blessed,
> > >
> > >Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
> > >perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic
and
> > >seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?
> >
> > No, most of us outgrew the need for invisible friends years ago. Let
> > us know when you grow up.
>
> Brian, you may want to speak for yourself. If most recent studies are
> to be believed, "most of us", meaning a large majority of people in
> the US (and yes I know this group is not limited to the US)do believe
> in a supreme being. Be they Christian, Jew, Muslim or any of a host of
> other religions, they believe in a god. While many may not be as up
> front about it as Mike, you cannot pretend that you, as an apparent
> non-believer, are in some sort of majority. So I guess "most" of us
> have not outgrown the "need for invisible friends" as you so
> elequently put it.
>
> Dave Hall

No, Mike, I disagree. And here is why.

The problem with having a moderator is one of censorship. Any entity
deciding what is allowed to be discussed by the public is, by definition,
corrupt as the choice of whether or not to approve or disapprove of a
message if biased by that entity's sense of what they think is right.

This is a public forum. Very much like a group of people gathered on a
street corner. Having a moderator is akin to having a police force pick and
chose who is allowed to walk down the street or join the conversation. This
is actually illegal on the street, so why would we want it here.

Who is to say that the moderator wouldn't start disallowing certain messages
based on the persons name? Can you really be certain that someone with a
religious agenda (in your case, Christian) would not reject messages from
some one with what you think is a Jewish sounding name? And how would we,
the public, know if you did? We would only see what you allowed us to see.

It is a slippery slope indeed.

Our freedoms are being eroded everyday. Even our own Congress/President
wants to both control and have access to all private email of all American
citizens through the Patriot Act. Do we really want to continue down that
road? I sure don't.

I want my private email to stay private and also be able to voice my public
opinion freely without restriction. That said, I do have enough self-control
to post what is appropriate.

And that is the real problem here. Spammers, pornographers and religious
zealots who have no regard for what is appropriate. If these groups had any
respect for others, then we would need a moderator and everyone would be
happier.

So, there. You have made the choice to group yourself with spammers and
pornographers and to use the exact same tactics and behavior that you
condemn them for.

Hope your happy.


Actually I don't mind the porn so much. :-)


codepath



"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> In His Name, be Blessed,
>
> I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>
> God Bless,
>
> Mike
>

codepath wrote:
> But this is a woodworking group. So, unless your "Supreme Being" is David
> Marks or Norm Abram, then the mere mention of "any" idol or icon is off
> topic.
> I personally do not believe in any supernatural phenomenon such as
> disembodied spirits, ghosts, or poltergeists. But, even if I did, any
> mention of that in this group is out of place. This group is for discussions
> of or relating to woodworking. Period. Pushing any religion is bad taste.

What about Druids or other nature based religions, they have to do with
wood(s).

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

You wouldn't be a Wicken by any chance would you? :-)




<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> codepath wrote:
> > But this is a woodworking group. So, unless your "Supreme Being" is
David
> > Marks or Norm Abram, then the mere mention of "any" idol or icon is off
> > topic.
> > I personally do not believe in any supernatural phenomenon such as
> > disembodied spirits, ghosts, or poltergeists. But, even if I did, any
> > mention of that in this group is out of place. This group is for
discussions
> > of or relating to woodworking. Period. Pushing any religion is bad
taste.
>
> What about Druids or other nature based religions, they have to do with
> wood(s).
>
> Dave in Fairfax
> --
> reply-to doesn't work
> use:
> daveldr at att dot net
> American Association of Woodturners
> http://www.woodturner.org
> Capital Area Woodturners
> http://www.capwoodturners.org/

To me:

religion = cult

But, that's just me.

However, consider the most public examples of those who profess and push
there beliefs at us.

Jimmy Swaggart
Jim and Tammy Faye Baker
Pat Robertson
Jerry Falwell

Doesn't this make you think that Heaven would be a very annoying place to
be?


codepath

But I love Robert Tilton. He makes me laugh. I have a gag-reel of some of
his funniest moments.



"Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:13:15 GMT, [email protected] (Peter
> Ashby) wrote:
>
> >I think if Mike can post his religious views and offend with them then
> >Brian should be accorded the same courtesy. And over here in the post
> >christian parts of the planet the 'most of us' does seem to be fairly
> >correct. Though it does depend on how the question is phrased.
>
> It has nothing to do with courtesy, it has to do with someone's
> religious spam being tossed around a newsgroup where it doesn't
> belong, after he's been politely been asked to cut it out, or at least
> modify it to follow the posting standard. Mike doesn't give a damn
> what anyone else thinks.

codepath wrote:
> You wouldn't be a Wicken by any chance would you? :-)

You know, I was asked that by another person just the other day. I'll
give you the same answer I gave him. I prefer to think of myself as a
Primitive Animist. I have nothing against Wiccans, but I prefer not to
be tied down to a dogma. Besides this view of the world can be argued
on a specious scientific basis rather than on leaps of faith. ;-)
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

I was just thinking that.

So, how shall I exit this thread. I could use Godwin's Law
(http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html) and compare Mike
Z. (and his ilk) to Hitler and the Nazi's jack-booted Gestapo propaganda
machine which should end the thread completely.

Or I could just filter this thread.

Hey, why deprive myself. I'll try both!


codepath




"Myxylplyk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > --
> > off-topic ans questionable salutation SNIPPED<
> >
> <meaningless troll inspiried question SNIPPED>
>
> > selfserving calling for a devine blessing SNIPPED>
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > another annoying signature URL AD SNIPPED>
>
> Mike,
>
> You seem to have some juxtapositional God issues,
> passing out blessing in the name of God like some apostle.
>
> I have to say: NICE troll! Seems to have struck the nerve you aimed at!
> I can't wait for your next driveling troll bait.
>
> Myx
>
>

Codepath wrote:
> You wouldn't be a Wicken by any chance would you? :-)
Addendum, I do have an in-law who died at Salem.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> Do they weigh the same as a duck?

The ones I've seen don't even walk like one. <G>
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Mother Theresa was a fine person who did great things. But still, a single
individual and not reflective of the attitudes of the Catholic church in
general. But the Mother T. card is old and tired and tattered around the
edges. And now that she is gone, the Catholic church is without a credible
spokesperson.

The Pope? Please. Don't get me started on the Catholic church! Uh-oh. Too
late.

[turning green and growing in size in a Hulk like fashion]

Why are all Popes ancient old white men firmly rooted in the past and bent
on perpetuating antiquated notions of the world and not willing to make any
real progress? Because the old ways keeping the cash coming in. I see no
real difference between the Catholic church and any of the tele-vangelist
out to get every penny they can.

Have you seen the Vatican? More luxurious than any palace on the planet.
Even their churches are dripping with opulence. A vain, gaudy display of
wealth that flies in the face decency. So much suffering in the world, yet
they sit their miserly asses on a mountain of gold (at least the high
billions, maybe trillions).

Other Catholic church gripes:

1. Sitting on a ton of wealth. This could be used towards AIDS research. Of
course that would require that they acknowledge homosexuals as actual human
beings first.

2. Sitting on a ton of wealth. This could be used towards actually ending
disease and hunger in some third world countries. Of course that would mean
that they would have to stop the extortion of forcing the hungry to convert
to Catholicism before giving them the food and medicine.

3. Too busy protecting pedophiles (the Pedophile Relocation & Denial
Program). How ANY so-called religion actually allow this to continue in the
name of their God is beyond me. They protect the priests but who, if not a
person of God, protects the children?

4. Suppression of birth control methods other than the Rhythm Method
especially for teenage who unfortunately are fast becoming the most prolific
segment of our society. I suppose in order to increase membership and cash
flow. Honestly, white people on the Rhythm Method? We can't even dance
without looking goofy!

5. General Catholic attitude is one of guilt, shame, and vengeance. Oh, yes,
he's a good God. A benevolent God. A just God. Until you break a rule. Then
you are condemned to the fires of Hell and damnation for all eternity!
Unless you apologize for your sin (molesting a child, raping a school
teacher, murdering a stranger), then all of a sudden, it's hey you're
forgiving. No problem, just say this a couple of dozen times and it's off to
Heaven you go.

AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!! HULK SMASH PUNY HUMANS!!!!

[okay feeling better now. returning to normal.]

My wife is a recovering Catholic (born and raised) and agrees with every
point above.


codepath

I know I said that I was going to filter this thread, but I just couldn't. I
hate censorship so much that I cannot even do it to myself.



"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "codepath" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >To me:
> >
> >religion = cult
> >
> >But, that's just me.
>
> Fortunately. :-)
> >
> >However, consider the most public examples of those who profess and push
> >there beliefs at us.
> >
> >Jimmy Swaggart
> >Jim and Tammy Faye Baker
> >Pat Robertson
> >Jerry Falwell
> >
> >Doesn't this make you think that Heaven would be a very annoying place to
> >be?
> >
> Consider instead Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, or Billy Graham, and
one
> might get the opposite impression.
>
> --
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for
Miss America?

I don't need no steenking Taliban....

Plonk-O-Matic!

Philski

Bay Area Dave wrote:
> when are you gonna get around to asking for donations for burial
> expenses like you did about a 15 months ago? that went over real
> well; kinda like a Zeppelin...

15 months ago is before my time here. Is there some difference between
Christmas ornaments & funeral expenses that I'm missing? <g> A bunch of
ornaments were made & given away...

-- Mark

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:41:52 -0800, "codepath" <[email protected]>
brought forth from the murky depths:

>You wouldn't be a Wicken by any chance would you? :-)

Mmmmm, tastes like Wiccan!


--
Impeach 'em ALL!
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>

No... spam, trolls, etc., are annoying but so are moderators that aren't
on-line 24/7, or who feel compelled to add tag-lines or commentary to
everything crossing the group, or who burn up bandwidth nagging everyone
about message formatting and etiquette. ;-)

John

Doug Miller wrote:

>
> The Church neither teaches nor believes that Mary is in any way divine, and it
> never has.
>


Interesting.

As a child I was taught that worshiping statues was wrong. I learned of
Christians and other followers of the Holy Trinity smashing idols and other
figures prayed to in savage and heathen cultures.

Then I go to a Catholic church and see people praying to statues. Specifically
those of Mary.

And now you say she is in no way divine? Never has been?

I guess it's ok to pray to statues as long as their Catholic statues.


And lets not forget, celibacy came about to protect Church property.


--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

Mike Zuchick wrote:

> I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?

Whether anyone agrees or not, it doesn't work that way. It's been too many
years since I read up on the intricacies of newsgroup creation and whatnot,
but to the best of my knowledge, the most you could hope to achieve would
be the creation of a new, separate group. Something like
rec.crafts.woodworking.moderated.

As to whether or not that's a worthy goal, moderated newsgroups pretty much
universally suck. Something about moderation takes the life out of a crowd
faster than any number of trolls. For proof, find any pair of newsgroups
where there's a moderated and an unmoderated version. Read them both for a
bit and see for yourself. Every time I've done this in the past, I've
always wound up staying with the unmoderated group and dialing up my
squelch.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Mike Zuchick wrote:

> Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the

Look guy, sorry about letting you know about the issue. Like I said,
just in case you did not know. Your message is hard to read because of
it.

> perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic
> and seem to have no moral center.

And so this response reflects your religious morals? By the way, I have
a pretty well-defined moral center, it's just not the same as _your_
moral center.

Now, you made a proposal that requires a moderator to be continuously
filtering messages. It's a lot of work. Some people know how to say
things, some don't. Don't let the bad apples get you angry. If you
would like to create a moderated woodworking group I'd gladly make that
my new woodworking home, but I don't have the time or commitment level to
moderate.

> God be with the child who comes here?

Yeah, pretty much. Usenet is an unregulated wasteland where it's pretty
hard to shut someone up and it's very easy to state your opinion
unafraid. The only decency is the common human decency of individuals,
and therefore, by definition, some fool will always be able to post
whetever he/she wants. I'm ok with hitting the "next" button to deal
with it.

Thank goodness, though, the Usenet is pretty hard to find nowadays.
Before any children wind up here they will be exposed to malicious
perverts in the chat rooms and unsightly e-mail ads and web sites.

--
gabriel

In article <090220042133102661%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Barss
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I nominate Cthulu. Or Beezelbub.
>
>Pan or Dionysis would be more fun... Even Thor, who at least has a
>hammer!

*ESPECIALLY* since most woodworkers have had a "Thor thumb" at one time
or another -- usually as a _direct_ result of the hammer.

what's the old saying "He hit the nail right on the thumb" ?

<muffled guffaw>

In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>

First off, Mike, fix the way you post -- put the body of your post *above*
your sig so it gets quoted properly when someone replies.

Second, no, I don't think it's time for a moderator. There's so much diversity
of opinion here on the ON-topic issues that get people wound up (SawStop, for
example), to say nothing of the OFF-topic ones, that it would be difficult, if
not impossible, to find a sufficiently impartial, objective individual to
serve as moderator.

Third, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of posts in the last six or
eight months describing various methods of filtering out the garbage. I don't
see any of the crap _at_all_ unless I look at Nfilter's "dropped articles"
list. I suggest you give Nfilter a try. It will make your newsgroup experience
much more pleasant.

FWIW, I wish Google would fix their "Safe Search" filtering so it looks at the
*titles* of the posts as well as their content. As it stands, a post with an
offensive title and innocuous content passes the filter. I've complained to
Google about this, but so far to no avail.



--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

In His Name, be Blessed,

Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?

God Bless,

Mike


www.scrollsaw-works.com
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike
Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>
> First off, Mike, fix the way you post -- put the body of your post *above*
> your sig so it gets quoted properly when someone replies.
>
> Second, no, I don't think it's time for a moderator. There's so much
diversity
> of opinion here on the ON-topic issues that get people wound up (SawStop,
for
> example), to say nothing of the OFF-topic ones, that it would be
difficult, if
> not impossible, to find a sufficiently impartial, objective individual to
> serve as moderator.
>
> Third, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of posts in the last six
or
> eight months describing various methods of filtering out the garbage. I
don't
> see any of the crap _at_all_ unless I look at Nfilter's "dropped articles"
> list. I suggest you give Nfilter a try. It will make your newsgroup
experience
> much more pleasant.
>
> FWIW, I wish Google would fix their "Safe Search" filtering so it looks at
the
> *titles* of the posts as well as their content. As it stands, a post with
an
> offensive title and innocuous content passes the filter. I've complained
to
> Google about this, but so far to no avail.
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for
Miss America?

codepath wrote:

> But in the end, I don't care either way as long as the format of the
> message is correct per the de facto standards of Usenet.
> [BODY OF MESSAGE]
> [SIGNATURE]
> I don't even care about the mentioned use of double-hyphens (--).

For what it's worth, the double dash _is_ part of the NNTP standard.

--
gabriel

In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>In His Name, be Blessed,
>
>Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
>perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
>seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?
>
>God Bless,
>
>Mike

Mike, I'm not complaining about the *content* of your sig line -- personally,
I think it's fine, and I'm not offended at all -- I'm objecting to the
*format* of your posts. The format *should* be like this:

[body of your post]
[line beginning with two hyphens]
[your signature]

But that's a minor point, really.

You need to recognize that *no* amount of complaining, or anything else, is
going to stop the perverts from posting whatever they want. Just killfile or
filter them, and forget it. Complain to their ISPs if you want. But don't
bother complaining here -- it won't help. Might make it worse.

And the idea of a moderator is a non-starter, I'm afraid. Do you *really*
think that a group as diverse as this could *ever* agree on a moderator
acceptable to all parties? If you do... you're dreaming, my friend.
>
>
>www.scrollsaw-works.com
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike
>Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> First off, Mike, fix the way you post -- put the body of your post *above*
>> your sig so it gets quoted properly when someone replies.
>>
>> Second, no, I don't think it's time for a moderator. There's so much
>diversity
>> of opinion here on the ON-topic issues that get people wound up (SawStop,
>for
>> example), to say nothing of the OFF-topic ones, that it would be
>difficult, if
>> not impossible, to find a sufficiently impartial, objective individual to
>> serve as moderator.
>>
>> Third, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of posts in the last six
>or
>> eight months describing various methods of filtering out the garbage. I
>don't
>> see any of the crap _at_all_ unless I look at Nfilter's "dropped articles"
>> list. I suggest you give Nfilter a try. It will make your newsgroup
>experience
>> much more pleasant.
>>
>> FWIW, I wish Google would fix their "Safe Search" filtering so it looks at
>the
>> *titles* of the posts as well as their content. As it stands, a post with
>an
>> offensive title and innocuous content passes the filter. I've complained
>to
>> Google about this, but so far to no avail.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>>
>> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for
>Miss America?
>
>

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Tag, your it.

That oughtta keep him busy for a while.

UA100

Brian Henderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:52:18 GMT, "Mike Zuchick"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In His Name, be Blessed,
> >
> >Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
> >perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
> >seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?
>
> No, most of us outgrew the need for invisible friends years ago. Let
> us know when you grow up.

Brian, you may want to speak for yourself. If most recent studies are
to be believed, "most of us", meaning a large majority of people in
the US (and yes I know this group is not limited to the US)do believe
in a supreme being. Be they Christian, Jew, Muslim or any of a host of
other religions, they believe in a god. While many may not be as up
front about it as Mike, you cannot pretend that you, as an apparent
non-believer, are in some sort of majority. So I guess "most" of us
have not outgrown the "need for invisible friends" as you so
elequently put it.

Dave Hall

[email protected] (Peter Ashby) wrote in message news:<1g8y4sc.fl3egt1380a1pN%[email protected]>...
> David Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Brian Henderson <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:52:18 GMT, "Mike Zuchick"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In His Name, be Blessed,
> > > >
> > > >Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
> > > >perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
> > > >seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?
> > >
> > > No, most of us outgrew the need for invisible friends years ago. Let
> > > us know when you grow up.
> >
> > Brian, you may want to speak for yourself. If most recent studies are
> > to be believed, "most of us", meaning a large majority of people in
> > the US (and yes I know this group is not limited to the US)do believe
> > in a supreme being. Be they Christian, Jew, Muslim or any of a host of
> > other religions, they believe in a god. While many may not be as up
> > front about it as Mike, you cannot pretend that you, as an apparent
> > non-believer, are in some sort of majority. So I guess "most" of us
> > have not outgrown the "need for invisible friends" as you so
> > elequently put it.
>
> I think if Mike can post his religious views and offend with them then
> Brian should be accorded the same courtesy. And over here in the post
> christian parts of the planet the 'most of us' does seem to be fairly
> correct. Though it does depend on how the question is phrased.
>
> Peter


Well, I have no problem with Brian posting his views (and I am not
offended by them or by Mike's), however, he made a statement of fact
that I do not believe
is true. He stated as a fact that "most of us outgrew the need for
invisible friends years ago" which I believe the context clearly meant
that most of us do not believe in a supreme being. I do believe that
most of "us" as well as most of "you" (i.e. people in the UK) do
believe in a supreme being (i.e. an "invisable friend"). Now Brian can
have a problem with Mike, he can have a problem with religion, he can
be agnostic or he can be a devil worshiper and it is no concern of
mine and I could not care less (no staining of cherry though - that is
a true religious issue). However, if he wants to state as a fact that
most people do not believe in a god, then I can state that this is
incorrect. BTW if the UK is so "post christian" why is it one of the
few places on earth where there are still violent clashes between
different christian sects that can't seem to be resolved?
Post-Christians shouldn't act that way, they should have violent
clashes over something different than whether you are Catholic or
Protestant.

Dave Hall

"codepath" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> To me:
>
> religion = cult
>
> But, that's just me.
>
> However, consider the most public examples of those who profess and push
> there beliefs at us.
>
> Jimmy Swaggart
> Jim and Tammy Faye Baker
> Pat Robertson
> Jerry Falwell
>
> Doesn't this make you think that Heaven would be a very annoying place to
> be?

Let's see-

Martin Luther King
Desmond Tutu
Mother Theresa

Yeah, they might annoy you when the time comes.

Dave Hall

"Peter Ashby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1g8yj0y.6jjx54159y71wN%[email protected]...

<snip of previous diatribes>

> You think most of these people are christians? No, they use their
> supposed religion as tribal markers, nothing more. The role of religion
> in this is to preserve the tribes by making the otherwise inevitable
> intermarriage of two such close communities very difficult. We saw the
> same thing happen in the Balkans between orthodox christians, catholics
> and moslems. How else do you explain the lack of integration? I doubt if
> many of the protagonists were particularly devout, the religion doesn't
> enter at that point of the divide, it is earlier and more insidious. The
> Balkans were a warning to all of us.
>
> Also here in post christian Scotland (don't believe me? ask the Church
> of Scotland, it was their admission) we have ritualised outlets for
> sectarian tensions, it's called fitba.
>
> Peter

Hi, Peter,

If I can remember my Hamish Imlach, he had something to say on that score in
"The Derry and Cumberland Boys":-

The Derry Boys are Roman Catholics
Tae the Mass they've been once or twice,
And Parkheid is their new Jerusalem,
And Jock Stein's their latter-day Christ.

The Cumbie boys are devout Christians,
They're awfy religious ye see,
Their language it too is religious:
"Oh ma Goad", "Jesus Christ", "FTP!"

When asked what they think o religion
They'll say "Aw religions aw right"
But these guys are only religious
When they want an excuse for a fight

So don't wear a green scarf in Brigton
Or a blue scarf in Cumberland Street
Unless yer name's Mohammed Ali,
Or yer helluva quick on yer feet!

I'd agree that a lot of it is simply tribal, but, equally, a lot of it in NI
is down to organised crime - the Godfathers on both sides are doing quite
nicely out of the Troubles. Nocht tae dae wi' releegion or Freedum Frae The
Saxon Oppressor at a'.

For our friends in the US, remember that last bit when someone shaking a
collection tin in a bar asks you to contribute to NORAID or the UVF....

< jock rock and political rant mode off>

Cheers

Frank

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:52:18 GMT, "Mike Zuchick"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In His Name, be Blessed,
>
>Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
>perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
>seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?

No, most of us outgrew the need for invisible friends years ago. Let
us know when you grow up.

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>

No, Mike. What you should think about is that if this group were properly
moderated, we would never see any posts from you.

Are you guys saying that "Nibble my nipples" isn't a regular poster to the
wreck??? And here I was pissed that they forgot to put OT in front of their
post...

On a serious note, please keep the religion out of it - it's almost as
annoying as "Munch my Meat" and his post about his "uncut penis head".
(He's a regular poster though, right?)

Ben


On 2/9/04 8:08 PM, in article [email protected],
"Wes Stewart" <n7ws@_arrl.net> wrote:

> On 09 Feb 2004 18:06:08 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
> |Mike Zuchick states:
> |
> |>--
> |>In His Name, be Blessed,
> |>
> |>I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
> |>
> |>God Bless,
> |
> |Not unless we get one that doesn't allow religous expression.
>
> Amen ;)

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6qSVb.21952

>
> Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
> perverts post what they wish as they wish.

Your sig line is fine,, just in the wrong place....Did you miss that?

>You guys are truly pathetic and seem to have no moral center. God be with
the child who comes here?


So uh, does this mean that you will continue to squirm around in the mush
with us or are you going to disappear?

In article <[email protected]>, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:

>Turned out being reborn didn't change him at all.
>That was my "crock" moment.
>
So one hypocrite talking the talk but not walking the walk means that the walk
is not worthwhile?

I don't think so. I know too many people whose lives were radically changed to
think that.

Sorry that you had the misfortune to encounter one of the others. There are
unfortunately all too many of them.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Mike Zuchick wrote:
> In His Name, be Blessed,
>
> Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
> perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
> seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?


You're the moron who's looking at the crap; not us. We've adjusted our rules to
filter it out. It's not my fault you don't have the skills or the knowledge to
accomplish the same.

As for my moral center, fuck off, you pompous gaping asshole. Isn't there an
altar boy you could molest?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In news:[email protected],
> Mike Zuchick <[email protected]> typed:
>
> >I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>
> I don't. Are you volunteering?
>
> Also, I agree with Gabriel regarding your sig. Please put the body of your
> post PRIOR to your sig so that it gets quoted easily.
>
> Thanks
>
No, no moderator needed- just a decent newsreader with an easy to use
killfile (or bozobin).

and yet another vote to fix your posts so the .sig comes last.

/vic

NO, I don't agree.

Mike Zuchick wrote:

Mike Iglesias wrote:
>> I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>
> Given the several hundred postings/day on this newsgroup, I think you're
> going to be hard pressed to find someone who has enough time to moderate
> this newsgroup.
>
> Get some kind of kill-file add-on for the newsreader you are using,
> or use the built-in stuff if your newsreader already has it.


I noticed the postings this morning that probably inspired this request. I
spent a couple of minutes adjusting my newsgroup rules and PRESTO: no more
crap. I'm using plain old Outlook Express w/ Quotefix.

I don't see a need for a moderator. All they do is slow down the process of
posting. In a group of this size I would agree it would be a monumental task.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

In article <1g90g7t.pf8uwmra017uN%[email protected]>, [email protected] (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <1g908tb.psc5dpwoafkiN%[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>> >Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>>>> >Why are all Popes ancient old white men firmly rooted in the past
>and bent
>>>> >on perpetuating antiquated notions of the world and not willing to
>make any
>>>> >real progress?
>> >>
>> >> Because even though the world has changed (and not necessarily for the
>> > better,
>>>> either; change isn't always synonymous with progress), what's right
>and moral
>> >> and true remains the same.
>> >
>> >Which is why the church has changed its mind on: celibate priests, the
>> >truth of heliocentrism, papal infallibility, the divinity of Mary, and
>> >recently even evolution.
>> >
>> Sorry, but you're quite mistaken. One at a time:
>>
>> Priestly celibacy is a practice in certain parts of the Catholic Church, most
>> predominantly in the Roman Rite. It forms *no*part* of Church *doctrine*,
>> that is, the Church's teaching on faith and morals. Other Rites within the
>> Catholic Church allow their priests to marry.
>>
>> Heliocentrism likewise is not part of the Church's teaching on faith and
>> morals, and never was.
>
>I have noticed that you have changed the terms under discussion. Nowhere
>above did you restrict the point to the church's teachin on faith and
>morals. If you are going to redefine the subject in order to defend
>something then I will have to conclude there is no point in engaging in
>debate with you.
>
Some of your claims are outright false regardless (e.g. that the Church
"changed its mind" in regard to the divinity of Mary, or on papal
infallibility). I notice you snipped my comments in regard to those two.

You raised those claims in response to my statement that what's right and
moral and true doesn't change -- that's the mission of the Church, to teach us
what's right and moral and true. Anything outside of that, is outside the
scope of the Church.

Such a debate is waaaay OT here anyway, and I think it's past time to give it
a rest. If you'd like to continue by private email, my addy is in my sig
below.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Mike Zuchick wrote:

> In His Name, be Blessed,
>
> I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>
> God Bless,
>
> Mike
>
>
> www




I volunteer you Mike.





--


y.



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

God be with any parent who lets their children use the NewsGroups

--
She's got tools, and she knows how to use them.

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In His Name, be Blessed,
>
> Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
> perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
> seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?
>
> God Bless,
>
> Mike
>
>
> www.scrollsaw-works.com
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Mike
> Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > First off, Mike, fix the way you post -- put the body of your post
*above*
> > your sig so it gets quoted properly when someone replies.
> >
> > Second, no, I don't think it's time for a moderator. There's so much
> diversity
> > of opinion here on the ON-topic issues that get people wound up
(SawStop,
> for
> > example), to say nothing of the OFF-topic ones, that it would be
> difficult, if
> > not impossible, to find a sufficiently impartial, objective individual
to
> > serve as moderator.
> >
> > Third, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of posts in the last six
> or
> > eight months describing various methods of filtering out the garbage. I
> don't
> > see any of the crap _at_all_ unless I look at Nfilter's "dropped
articles"
> > list. I suggest you give Nfilter a try. It will make your newsgroup
> experience
> > much more pleasant.
> >
> > FWIW, I wish Google would fix their "Safe Search" filtering so it looks
at
> the
> > *titles* of the posts as well as their content. As it stands, a post
with
> an
> > offensive title and innocuous content passes the filter. I've complained
> to
> > Google about this, but so far to no avail.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
> >
> > How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for
> Miss America?
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, "codepath" <[email protected]> wrote:
>To me:
>
>religion = cult
>
>But, that's just me.

Fortunately. :-)
>
>However, consider the most public examples of those who profess and push
>there beliefs at us.
>
>Jimmy Swaggart
>Jim and Tammy Faye Baker
>Pat Robertson
>Jerry Falwell
>
>Doesn't this make you think that Heaven would be a very annoying place to
>be?
>
Consider instead Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, or Billy Graham, and one
might get the opposite impression.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

right on!

dave

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area
> Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Every run across a sane person who agreed with your
>>attitudes and behavior??
>
>
> I invoke Formosa's Law.
>
> <http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/Formosas-Law.html>
>
> djb
>

In article <[email protected]>, "codepath" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>But in the end, I don't care either way as long as the format of the message
>is correct per the de facto standards of Usenet.
>
>[BODY OF MESSAGE]
>[SIGNATURE]
>
>I don't even care about the mentioned use of double-hyphens (--).
>
That *does* make a difference, actually. Sensible newsreaders recognize that
as the beginning of a sig block, and don't quote that line or anything
following it when replying to a post. And that's the problem that I have with
Mike Z's posts.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> --
> off-topic ans questionable salutation SNIPPED<
>
<meaningless troll inspiried question SNIPPED>

> selfserving calling for a devine blessing SNIPPED>
> Mike
>
>
> another annoying signature URL AD SNIPPED>

Mike,

You seem to have some juxtapositional God issues,
passing out blessing in the name of God like some apostle.

I have to say: NICE troll! Seems to have struck the nerve you aimed at!
I can't wait for your next driveling troll bait.

Myx

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> In His Name, be Blessed,
>
> Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
> perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic
> and seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes
> here?
>
> God Bless,
>
> Mike
>


Well, see, to a lot of people, myself included, you are as offensive as the
"perverts"...

At any rate, you have been notified that your method of posting creates
issues for others. So you can change it, or not. And we can classify you
with the "perverts", or not. Ball's in your court, friend.

CHRIST, am I gonna have to fire my proofreader??

remove the "a" from:
expenses like you did about a 15 months ago?

make "every" "ever" from
Every run across a sane person who agreed with your

dave



Bay Area Dave wrote:

> when are you gonna get around to asking for donations for burial
> expenses like you did about a 15 months ago? that went over real well;
> kinda like a Zeppelin...
>
> A true Christian doesn't need to toss his "religion" in everyone's face,
> especially at inappropriate times and places. You aren't a quick study,
> are you Michael? go row your boat elsewhere and spare us all your
> holier-than-thou bull crap. You deserve ZERO respect after you begged
> for donations. Every run across a sane person who agreed with your
> attitudes and behavior??
>
> dave
>
> Mike Zuchick wrote:
>
>> In His Name, be Blessed,
>>
>> Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
>> perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic
>> and
>> seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?
>>
>> God Bless,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> www.scrollsaw-works.com
>> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike
>>
>>
>> Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> First off, Mike, fix the way you post -- put the body of your post
>>> *above*
>>> your sig so it gets quoted properly when someone replies.
>>>
>>> Second, no, I don't think it's time for a moderator. There's so much
>>
>>
>> diversity
>>
>>> of opinion here on the ON-topic issues that get people wound up
>>> (SawStop,
>>
>>
>> for
>>
>>> example), to say nothing of the OFF-topic ones, that it would be
>>
>>
>> difficult, if
>>
>>> not impossible, to find a sufficiently impartial, objective
>>> individual to
>>> serve as moderator.
>>>
>>> Third, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of posts in the last six
>>
>>
>> or
>>
>>> eight months describing various methods of filtering out the garbage. I
>>
>>
>> don't
>>
>>> see any of the crap _at_all_ unless I look at Nfilter's "dropped
>>> articles"
>>> list. I suggest you give Nfilter a try. It will make your newsgroup
>>
>>
>> experience
>>
>>> much more pleasant.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I wish Google would fix their "Safe Search" filtering so it
>>> looks at
>>
>>
>> the
>>
>>> *titles* of the posts as well as their content. As it stands, a post
>>> with
>>
>>
>> an
>>
>>> offensive title and innocuous content passes the filter. I've complained
>>
>>
>> to
>>
>>> Google about this, but so far to no avail.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>>>
>>> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for
>>
>>
>> Miss America?
>>
>>
>

Saudade wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Mike Zuchick <[email protected]> typed:
>
>> I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>
> I don't. Are you volunteering?
>
> Also, I agree with Gabriel regarding your sig. Please put the body of your
> post PRIOR to your sig so that it gets quoted easily.


Yep, I had the same problem with it. I had to reply to a reply to be able to
quote him at all.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Mike Zuchick wrote:

I'm neutral on the issue (but I admire anyone willing to moderate a group
with as many posts as we have here).

I want to let you know, though, that what I suppose you want your signature
to be ("In His Name, be Blessed," with the "--" above it), is placed at the
beginning of your message, thereby making your whole message apeearing to
be part of your signature (usually, everything below "--" is the
signature). It makes it very hard to read your message, and if one uses a
smarter NG reader, then a reply to you will quote nothing, since the whole
message looks like a gigantic signature.

Just in case you did not know...

--
gabriel

Leslie Gossett wrote:

> God be with any parent who lets their children use the NewsGroups

LOL! Very true. The only way I can think of is when someone already has a
reader configured and then the kid stumbles on by accident. Anyway, the
age of raising kids oblivious of every evil in the world is pretty much
gone.

--
gabriel

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:22:39 -0800, "codepath" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Adding "Mike Zuchick" to my news filter.

he's been in mine for a couple of years, I think. I had forgotten
about him until I saw the replies to his drivel.

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Zuchick <[email protected]> wrote:
>I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?

Given the several hundred postings/day on this newsgroup, I think you're
going to be hard pressed to find someone who has enough time to moderate
this newsgroup.

Get some kind of kill-file add-on for the newsreader you are using,
or use the built-in stuff if your newsreader already has it.

--
Mike Iglesias Email: [email protected]
University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926
Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069

Mike Zuchick <[email protected]> wrote:


: --
: In His Name, be Blessed,

: I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?

: God Bless,

I nominate Cthulu. Or Beezelbub.

-- Andy Bars

Mike Zuchick <[email protected]> wrote:

: In His Name, be Blessed,

: Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
: perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
: seem to have no moral center.


Hey Mike: you're the pathetic one.

I have a very well-defined moral center. It just doesn't include
flinging my religious beliefs at everyone and everything every single time
I post something.

:God be with the child who comes here?

Actually, may the gods protect the child from someone as religiously
in-your-face as you.

-- Andy Barss

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Mike Zuchick states:
>
> >--
> >In His Name, be Blessed,
> >
> >I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
> >
> >God Bless,
>
> Not unless we get one that doesn't allow religous expression.
>
> Charlie Self

Charlie, I've never been able to say things as well as Kipling does.

Example herewith:

Whether The People be led by The Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by vote--
These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
Brian Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Not only do I not agree that we need a moderator, you couldn't
>moderate this group if you wanted to! Usenet has rules and you can't
>convert a non-moderated group to a moderated one.

You could do this at one time. rec.bicycles.off-road was converted
to a moderated group because of one troublemaker who could not
follow the rules, started endless arguments about the impact of
mountain bikes, would not listen to reasoned counter-arguments, etc.

>You'd have to have a new group created, probably
>rec.woodworking.moderated, and there are more hoops and votes and
>nonsense to jump through to get that to happen than is at all likely
>to happen. You need to find several moderators, and then hope that
>anyone from rec.woodworking will actually post to
>rec.woodworking.moderated, which is unlikely.

It was a royal pain to convert rec.bicycles.off-road. I don't
think anyone really wants to spearhead changing this group or
making a new one.

>It's easier for you to just learn how to use a killfile on your own.

Agreed.


--
Mike Iglesias Email: [email protected]
University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926
Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069

In article <[email protected]>, Larry
Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> says...
> The Zoo Chick's posts would be the first to be moderated.
> [He IS consistent (totally irrational) in his thoughts, eh?]
>
Maybe we could get him together with "Dr. Chung" who has ruined
the cardiology newsgroup with religious rantings :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <1g90g7t.pf8uwmra017uN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > Heliocentrism likewise is not part of the Church's teaching on faith and
> > morals, and never was.
>
> I have noticed that you have changed the terms under discussion. Nowhere
> above did you restrict the point to the church's teachin on faith and
> morals. If you are going to redefine the subject in order to defend
> something then I will have to conclude there is no point in engaging in
> debate with you.
>
You're just figuring that out?

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>, "codepath" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mother Theresa was a fine person who did great things. But still, a single
>individual and not reflective of the attitudes of the Catholic church in
>general.

Your perspective differs from mine substantially in what the Church is like
"in general".


[snip]
>
>Why are all Popes ancient old white men firmly rooted in the past and bent
>on perpetuating antiquated notions of the world and not willing to make any
>real progress?

Because even though the world has changed (and not necessarily for the better,
either; change isn't always synonymous with progress), what's right and moral
and true remains the same.

>
>Have you seen the Vatican? More luxurious than any palace on the planet.

Have *you* seen it? And compared it to the palaces of the tsars, for example?
Or Versailles, or Buckingham Palace?

>Even their churches are dripping with opulence.

Visit St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church in Fortville, Indiana. Then tell
me it's "dripping with opulence." Or St. Ambrose in Anderson IN. Or St. Rita,
in Chicago. Or Guardian Angels, in Manistee, MI. Or...

I suspect I've probably been in a few more Catholic churches than you have.
And I haven't seen one *yet* that "drips of opulence". Quite the contrary, in
most cases.

>
>Other Catholic church gripes:
>
>1. Sitting on a ton of wealth. This could be used towards AIDS research. Of
>course that would require that they acknowledge homosexuals as actual human
>beings first.

We do. It's homosexual *acts* that we don't like. We figure it's better to
*prevent* disease in the first place.
>
>2. Sitting on a ton of wealth. This could be used towards actually ending
>disease and hunger in some third world countries.

The Catholic Relief Society and Caritas, to name two, are already doing that,
and have been, for a loooong time. There are many other Catholic charities
engaged in this work as well, as a dispassionate examination of the facts
would reveal.

>Of course that would mean
>that they would have to stop the extortion of forcing the hungry to convert
>to Catholicism before giving them the food and medicine.

Charity obliges me to assume that this comment was made out of ignorance,
rather than malice. Either way, it's a falsehood. We do no such thing.
>
>3. Too busy protecting pedophiles (the Pedophile Relocation & Denial
>Program). How ANY so-called religion actually allow this to continue in the
>name of their God is beyond me. They protect the priests but who, if not a
>person of God, protects the children?

I won't deny that many of our bishops have acted shamefully in protecting
priests who acted worse than shamefully. I would like to point out, however,
that in _all_ such cases, these men were acting contrary to the teachings of
the Church. Perhaps it is not proper to judge the value of those teachings by
the actions of those who do *not* follow them.
>
>4. Suppression of birth control methods other than the Rhythm Method
>especially for teenage who unfortunately are fast becoming the most prolific
>segment of our society. I suppose in order to increase membership and cash
>flow. Honestly, white people on the Rhythm Method? We can't even dance
>without looking goofy!

A complex subject which I don't wish to discuss here. If you like, we could
take it off-line.
>
>5. General Catholic attitude is one of guilt, shame, and vengeance. Oh, yes,
>he's a good God. A benevolent God. A just God. Until you break a rule. Then
>you are condemned to the fires of Hell and damnation for all eternity!

Substantial exaggeration, to say the least. :-)

>Unless you apologize for your sin (molesting a child, raping a school
>teacher, murdering a stranger), then all of a sudden, it's hey you're
>forgiving. No problem, just say this a couple of dozen times and it's off to
>Heaven you go.

Followed by a substantial oversimplification, I'm afraid. Forgiveness requires
penance. Not just the mindless repetition of a few prayers. Also a complex
subject that's better discussed off-line.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

>
> I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>
> God Bless,
>
> Mike


If the Moderator's primary charter is to filter out the religous shit,
then sure, I'm all for it.

Brian.

In article <[email protected]>,
gabriel <[email protected]> wrote:
>codepath wrote:
>
>> But in the end, I don't care either way as long as the format of the
>> message is correct per the de facto standards of Usenet.
>> [BODY OF MESSAGE]
>> [SIGNATURE]
>> I don't even care about the mentioned use of double-hyphens (--).
>
>For what it's worth, the double dash _is_ part of the NNTP standard.

The _actual_ standard is DASH-DASH-SPACE on a line with -nothing- else,
as the delimiter for the start of the signature. The trailing 'space'
*IS* important to most newsreader software.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:42:27 GMT, "Mike Zuchick"
<[email protected]> wrote:


I hate trolls, but I also don't like moderated newsgroups.

My vote is No.

Barry

[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:


>You raised those claims in response to my statement that what's right and
>moral and true doesn't change -- that's the mission of the Church, to teach us
>what's right and moral and true. Anything outside of that, is outside the

And what gives the [Catholic] church the right to define what is "moral and true"?

How were the Inquisition or the Crusades "moral and true"?

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:13:15 GMT, [email protected] (Peter
Ashby) wrote:

>I think if Mike can post his religious views and offend with them then
>Brian should be accorded the same courtesy. And over here in the post
>christian parts of the planet the 'most of us' does seem to be fairly
>correct. Though it does depend on how the question is phrased.

It has nothing to do with courtesy, it has to do with someone's
religious spam being tossed around a newsgroup where it doesn't
belong, after he's been politely been asked to cut it out, or at least
modify it to follow the posting standard. Mike doesn't give a damn
what anyone else thinks.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:26:39 -0600, Swingman wrote:


> Hey, as a hungry kid I was damn well guaranteed a place in hottest Hell
> every time I ate meat on Friday when there was nothing else at the public
> school cafeteria ... then suddenly one day it was OK, and all that
> childhood angst was for nought!
>
> And to think of the countless hours we kids spent mandatorily praying those
> poor souls out of purgatory, not to mention the cost of lighting all those
> damn candles so Father Brady could smoke Cuban cigars and feed his Tennesee
> Walking horse alfalfa.
>
> That's about the time I figured that organized religion being the sole
> guarantor of my salvation was a crock.

My revelation was at a church summer camp when I was about 10 years old.
One of the neighborhood kids conned me into going to this week long
camp. Praying morning, noon and night wasn't what got me so much as when
the neighborhood kid came forward and said he found it and was
reborn. I thought "Great!" as he was the rottenest little SOB around.
What really turned me off was the constant pressure for the rest of the
kids to do the same. Turned out being reborn didn't change him at all.
That was my "crock" moment.

-Doug

gabriel wrote:

> reader configured and then the kid stumbles on by accident. Anyway, the
> age of raising kids oblivious of every evil in the world is pretty much
> gone.

Too true. Half a dozen computers in every classroom, each with a T-1
connection.

I didn't actually try to get to any porn since the demo computer they had
set up was connected to a big TV for everyone to see, but I got to my own
personal web page from his classroom just by entering the URL into
Nutscrape or whatever browser they had set up.

They're not "allowed" to visit any web sites other than those which are
approved, but who can actually watch them all?

No one can.

I have serious doubts about Net Nanny or whatever porn filter they
supposedly have set up. I don't imagine it would take a determined
pre-teen long at all to google up some choice hardcore donkey sex or
whatever.

The bright side to all of this is that neither of my kids is the slightest
bit interested in computers or the internet. They'd rather play with
Legos.

I can't complain about that at all.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:09:07 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> brought forth from the murky
depths:

>In article <[email protected]>, Silvan
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Have you ever met a duck that weighed 200 pounds?
>
>What wood was it made from?
>
>Geez... Doesn't anyone 'round here watch Python?

Lop off the legs, add a beak...oops, it turned into
a parrot!


--
Impeach 'em ALL!
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>

When do you start?

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:16:54 -0500, "Al Reid"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>That seems somewhat intolerant. I suggest that we get one that does not allow Mark Twain quotes. How do you like that?

Count me as a vote for Mark Twain.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:35:46 -0800, "codepath" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>OTOH, if we were discussing the cross' joinery, that'd be different.
>

What do you think - two pieces joined with half laps, or three parts
joined with M&T?

Dave Balderstone wrote:

>> What about Druids or other nature based religions, they have to do with
>> wood(s).
>
> Do they weigh the same as a duck?

Have you ever met a duck that weighed 200 pounds?

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:52:18 GMT, "Mike Zuchick"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>In His Name, be Blessed,
>
>Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
>perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
>seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?
>
>God Bless,
>
>Mike

if i was offended by your sig i would be petty indeed. i killfile
obsene posters and certain words that are contained therein. if i
choose to read obsene material i will go to groups that are about that
sort of thing. this one is not so the killfile will have to suffice.
skeez

In news:[email protected],
Mike Zuchick <[email protected]> typed:

>I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?

I don't. Are you volunteering?

Also, I agree with Gabriel regarding your sig. Please put the body of your
post PRIOR to your sig so that it gets quoted easily.

Thanks

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:52:18 GMT, "Mike Zuchick"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[offensive off topic spam snipped]
>
>Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
>perverts post what they wish as they wish.

One is utterly unrelated to the other.

You are a known, semi-regular user who has been asked repeatedly to
turn down your off-topic rhetoric that is offensive to some (including
me) in order to make what is hoped to be a positive contribution to
the group, your call for a moderator notwithstanding.

The perverts are unknown, uncontrolled, and are best dealt with by
ignoring them, a protocol well known by anyone on usenet for more than
a month.

>You guys are truly pathetic...

And the scriptures you profess to follow sanction that sort of remark
in which chapter?

>...and seem to have no moral center.

You know nothing about me or my moral center, but I'll put it up
against yours any day.

[more offensive off topic spam snipped]

LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

I believe it says in the Bible...."Lo, I am with you always..." or something
to that effect. Before you start policing the entire Internet, I would like
to suggest that you get off your high horse and be LO fo a while.

Seriously, do you really believe that you can filter this junk out by mere
moderation by itself? Kill files and filters work the best.

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In His Name, be Blessed,
>
> Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
> perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
> seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?
>
> God Bless,
>
> Mike
>
>
> www.scrollsaw-works.com
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Mike
> Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > First off, Mike, fix the way you post -- put the body of your post
*above*
> > your sig so it gets quoted properly when someone replies.
> >
> > Second, no, I don't think it's time for a moderator. There's so much
> diversity
> > of opinion here on the ON-topic issues that get people wound up
(SawStop,
> for
> > example), to say nothing of the OFF-topic ones, that it would be
> difficult, if
> > not impossible, to find a sufficiently impartial, objective individual
to
> > serve as moderator.
> >
> > Third, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of posts in the last six
> or
> > eight months describing various methods of filtering out the garbage. I
> don't
> > see any of the crap _at_all_ unless I look at Nfilter's "dropped
articles"
> > list. I suggest you give Nfilter a try. It will make your newsgroup
> experience
> > much more pleasant.
> >
> > FWIW, I wish Google would fix their "Safe Search" filtering so it looks
at
> the
> > *titles* of the posts as well as their content. As it stands, a post
with
> an
> > offensive title and innocuous content passes the filter. I've complained
> to
> > Google about this, but so far to no avail.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
> >
> > How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for
> Miss America?
>
>

I second the nomination for Thor!

Leslie
--
She's got tools, and she knows how to use them.


"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:090220042133102661%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Barss
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I nominate Cthulu. Or Beezelbub.
>
> Pan or Dionysis would be more fun... Even Thor, who at least has a
> hammer!
>
> djb
>
> --
> Is it time to change my sig line yet?

Nope. I hate this crap as much as you do but I'll leave it to myself to
filter out that which I don't like.

Ignore it, This too, shall pass.

Rob

--



******PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW EMAIL ADDRESS******

[email protected]

Please visit our (recently updated) web site:
http://www.robswoodworking.com

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> --
> In His Name, be Blessed,
>
> I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
>
> God Bless,
>
> Mike
>
>
> www.scrollsaw-works.com
>
>

On 09 Feb 2004 18:06:08 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:

|Mike Zuchick states:
|
|>--
|>In His Name, be Blessed,
|>
|>I think it is about time for a Moderator for this Group. Anyone agree?
|>
|>God Bless,
|
|Not unless we get one that doesn't allow religous expression.

Amen ;)

Not only do I not agree that we need a moderator, you couldn't
moderate this group if you wanted to! Usenet has rules and you can't
convert a non-moderated group to a moderated one.

You'd have to have a new group created, probably
rec.woodworking.moderated, and there are more hoops and votes and
nonsense to jump through to get that to happen than is at all likely
to happen. You need to find several moderators, and then hope that
anyone from rec.woodworking will actually post to
rec.woodworking.moderated, which is unlikely.

It's easier for you to just learn how to use a killfile on your own.

when are you gonna get around to asking for donations for burial
expenses like you did about a 15 months ago? that went over real well;
kinda like a Zeppelin...

A true Christian doesn't need to toss his "religion" in everyone's face,
especially at inappropriate times and places. You aren't a quick study,
are you Michael? go row your boat elsewhere and spare us all your
holier-than-thou bull crap. You deserve ZERO respect after you begged
for donations. Every run across a sane person who agreed with your
attitudes and behavior??

dave

Mike Zuchick wrote:
> In His Name, be Blessed,
>
> Everyone seems to cry, whine and whimper about my Sig-Line while the
> perverts post what they wish as they wish. You guys are truly pathetic and
> seem to have no moral center. God be with the child who comes here?
>
> God Bless,
>
> Mike
>
>
> www.scrollsaw-works.com
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, "Mike
>
> Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>First off, Mike, fix the way you post -- put the body of your post *above*
>>your sig so it gets quoted properly when someone replies.
>>
>>Second, no, I don't think it's time for a moderator. There's so much
>
> diversity
>
>>of opinion here on the ON-topic issues that get people wound up (SawStop,
>
> for
>
>>example), to say nothing of the OFF-topic ones, that it would be
>
> difficult, if
>
>>not impossible, to find a sufficiently impartial, objective individual to
>>serve as moderator.
>>
>>Third, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of posts in the last six
>
> or
>
>>eight months describing various methods of filtering out the garbage. I
>
> don't
>
>>see any of the crap _at_all_ unless I look at Nfilter's "dropped articles"
>>list. I suggest you give Nfilter a try. It will make your newsgroup
>
> experience
>
>>much more pleasant.
>>
>>FWIW, I wish Google would fix their "Safe Search" filtering so it looks at
>
> the
>
>>*titles* of the posts as well as their content. As it stands, a post with
>
> an
>
>>offensive title and innocuous content passes the filter. I've complained
>
> to
>
>>Google about this, but so far to no avail.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>>
>>How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for
>
> Miss America?
>
>