OT:Fox news is allowed to lie.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Yeah, and that worked for a long time. Now, that has all changed,
>> we cannot trust public officials with our money or to make good
>> decisions. We need new laws to protect us from our elected
>> officials.
>
> Like it or not the country operates on a strong federal government.
>
> Seems among other things we fought a war to prove it, but still have folks
> trying to promote states rights, but face it, it's never going to happen.
>
> From time to time, the federal gogernment does a few things you don't
> like, but that's life.
>
> Might as well enjoy the ride..


Absolutely, We are here to observe and learn. Life is one big class room.

"J. Clarke" wrote
>
> If lawyers are to be banned from the courtroom then what is the point of
> having them?
>
Target practice??

"Leon" wrote:

>>> the people in the world are not Jews or Christians.
>>
>>
>> Religion, the biggest con job on the planet, fed by the
>> unwillingness of man to accept death as being final.
>>
>> Talk about total B/S.
>>
>> Lew
>
>
> It is a shame that you have not witnessed a miracle, I think you
> would quickly change your mind.
>

I believe it was Mark Twain who wrote," If you don't read the newspaper
you're uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you're misinformed."


Leon wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:9e2d849e-18b4-4ffa-9f37-20b3aa08d8ca@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
>> By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
>> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
>> nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
>> major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
>> in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
>> Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
>> to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
>> technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
>> lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
>>
>> http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
>>
>> PS. This ruling applies to all media. not just Fox. So all you Billo-
>> The-Clown-Hannity-Beck fans, keep your shirt on. Just keep on
>> defending those lying cocksuckers...oops, did I sound a bit too
>> liberal here?
>
> Well actually, they all have been lying for more years than you and I have
> been around. In the entertainment/media industry there is no honor, there
> is no need to put anything in perspective, and there is no monitary benefit
> for reporting the truth. You just have to realize that the media is for
> your entertainment. Only the wise can see this, the impressionable eat it
> up.
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Jun 29, 10:09=A0am, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Jim Wi=
llemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Could you give an example of a moral absolute that does not have
> >> exceptions?
>
> > It is always wrong to take innocent life.
>
> A ship is at sea and takes a torpedo to one of the forward compartments.
> =A0 The Captain orders the watertight doors sealed to preserve the ship
> while several seamen are still below that compartment. =A0Several innocen=
t
> lives are lost, but the remainder of the ship's compliment is saved.
>
> Was the Captain wrong?

The captain ordering the torpedo launch took the "innocent" life. The
captain on the receiving end was mitigating loss, as is his primary
responsibility. Replace "torpedo" with "ice berg" and your point
stands, though.

I seem to recall something about freedom of speech. Of course lying is
legal. If you depend on any talking head from any of the broadcast
media for accurate and factual information you deserve to be lied to.
It would be nice but these are private businesses in the United States
of America where they have the LIBERTY to do as they please within the
law. Our founders made the choice to give freedom of speech and
freedom of the press a very high priority, yes at a possible cost.
However, having the government enforce "truth: has ended up with far
worts consequences in every case in history. All the channels skew,
alter, ommit and yes lie to support their beliefs. I find that only
through the reliance on multiple and verifyable sources can you be
sure you have the real story... maybe.


On Jun 26, 11:42=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
> By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
> nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
> major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
> in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
> Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
> to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
> technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
> lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
>
> http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_n...
>
> PS. This ruling applies to all media. not just Fox. So all you Billo-
> The-Clown-Hannity-Beck fans, keep your shirt on. Just keep on
> defending those lying cocksuckers...oops, did I sound a bit too
> liberal here?

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>
>> How did you end up with that swamp land?
>
> Who said I have any swampland, I just broker deals.
>
>

You get between a willing seller and a willing buyer?

You must be from the government.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:33:58 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ultimately the "press" is going to destroy itself. If it holds itself to no
>higher standard than a raving blogger then what does it have to offer that
>the raving blogger doesn't have?

That process is already well underway. Newspapers seem to be
struggling and/or failing right and left. Our local paper is a mere
shadow of its former self. The broadcast media, local as well as
national, seems to be turning more and more away from calm,
unemotional presentation of fact toward titillating and/or
entertaining their viewers/listeners. A search for ratings (AKA
profits), maybe? At least that was my impression when I gave up on
them and tuned them out awhile back. If I want entertainment, I'll
read a book, not watch some talking heads try to tell me what is
really meant by the paucity of facts they do present.

The print media is not much better as evidenced by the commentary in
the link that started this thread - one bare fact and several
paragraphs of "Oh My God, look how bad this is". Little of which is
supported by the appellate opinion.

Hope it turns around, but I don't expect to see it. No, "hope" is the
wrong word. That implies some reasonable expectation that it will
happen. I "wish" it would turn around but have little hope that I will
see it happen.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Could you give an example of a moral absolute that does not have
>> exceptions?
>
> It is always wrong to take innocent life.

A ship is at sea and takes a torpedo to one of the forward compartments.
The Captain orders the watertight doors sealed to preserve the ship
while several seamen are still below that compartment. Several innocent
lives are lost, but the remainder of the ship's compliment is saved.

Was the Captain wrong?

RE: Subject

Fox is Faux.

Lew

On Jun 30, 9:18=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> >> Are you saying the rightness or wrongness of the Captain's decision
> >> depends on
> >> what caused the hole in the ship? =A0-- Doug
>
> Uh doh!
>
> Yes, I believe that is what he is saying. =A0Sorry. =A0

Close enough.

> The captain should not hav been anywhere near the ice berg.

Should not, agreed, but stuff happens. In the case of the iceberg the
captain of te sinking ship is culpable. It is still his
responsibility to save as many lives as possible.

On Jun 27, 5:02=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > Leon wrote:
> >> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> HeyBub wrote:
>
> >>>> To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive,
> >>>> morality is conditional.
>
> >>>> To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the
> >>>> Church prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To
> >>>> the not-devout, the end justifies the means.
> >>> And an excellent reason why a democracy/republic that wants to
> >>> survive the test of time needs to seriously consider prohibiting
> >>> graduates of a law school (where blurring the distinction between
> >>> morality and legality is stressed/taught as a noble concept) from
> >>> participating in the _legislative_ branch of government.
>
> >>> A silly idea?
>
> >>> Just take a close look at your congress and the damage they wrought
> >>> to this country!!
> >> Bryan and I were having a discussion about morals and government this
> >> morning. =A0I thought a solution could be to pass a new law that
> >> forbids any government office holders, or decision makers from
> >> drawing a salary of any kind. =A0Their work would be charity work much
> >> like we citizens provide charity work when participating in jury
> >> duty. =A0While we do get paid for participating, perhaps we could also
> >> allow a government official $6 per day for his contribution. =A0Really
> >> and truly when you actually see what public officials do, a week out
> >> of their year should be adequate to handle government business.
> >> Public officials should be considered "Public Servants", hummm, =A0wha=
t
> >> an idea.
> >> Obviously public officials would have a regular job like the rest of
> >> us for his or her financial needs. =A0Public Officials taking bribes o=
r
> >> being directly compensated for his or her decision making would be
> >> sentenced to life in prison. =A0Special interest groups would be
> >> illegal.
>
> > Ah, a career path for HOA officers.
>
> >> Further, ALL laws have to originate by a suggestion of the people and
> >> then a vote by the people would decide as to whether they pass or
> >> not. =A0Suggestions by the people would be collected by a minimum of 3=
,
> >> 3rd party public companies and the most popular suggestions from each
> >> would be compared =A0and published publicly for the people to vote on.
>
> > But if you do away with special interests, you have to do away with peo=
ple
> > voting.
>
> > Special interests are the foil to the madness of crowds. Sometimes the
> > special interests win, sometimes the mob wins. Most often they cancel e=
ach
> > other.
>
> > There is no BEST solution, but a better one is a monarchy.
>
> And a better one than that is to, once again, allow only property owners
> to vote.
>
> The "right" to vote of "everyman" is what is ultimately going to lead to
> the downfall of this republic.
>
> Think about it ...
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)

Wouldn't that run the risk of Property Owners trying to control who is
allowed to own property and who isn't? Not a smart-ass question, a
serious one. It happens, you know..;-}

On 6/26/2009 8:13 PM HeyBub spake thus:

> Go back with me now, to yesteryear of 1998, two shacked-up journalists
> sitting around their hand-me-down kitchen table, sweaters piling at the
> elbows, earth-shoes at the ready, and they make a decision:
>
> Jane: "I can no longer sit back and allow Fox infiltration, Fox
> indoctrination, Fox subversion, and the international NewsCorp conspiracy to
> sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. It's incredibly obvious,
> isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids,
> without the knowledge of the individual, certainly without any choice.
> That's the way a hard-core Murdoch works."

Your Murdochean "analysis" sucks, but at least I can appreciate your
homage to Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove".


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On Jun 28, 8:02=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> >> And you go on about Judaism, "the Catholic tradition", and
> >> "the non-Catholic tradition", but you totally ignore the fact that mos=
t
> >> of
> >> the people in the world are not Jews or Christians.
>
> > Religion, the biggest con job on the planet, fed by the unwillingness o=
f
> > man to accept death as being final.
>
> > Talk about total B/S.
>
> > Lew
>
> It is a shame that you have not witnessed a miracle, I think you would
> quickly change your mind.

I have witnessed a miracle. A real one. Too bad this forum has a few
people who would like to take potshots at the story if I told it.
And we ain't talking Jesus' image in burnt toast here.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:11:17 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>And an excellent reason why a democracy/republic that wants to survive
>the test of time needs to seriously consider prohibiting graduates of a
>law school ... from participating in the
>_legislative_ branch of government.
>
>A silly idea?

Not in my opinion. I've long felt that lawyers should be banned from
approaching within 500 yards any legislature or courtroom.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Jun 29, 12:36=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:40:30 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> > HeyBub wrote:
> >> Sorry, I wasn't trying to establish a primer on the religions of the
> >> world - I was just offering examples.
>
> > The trouble is that you selected your examples in such a way as to
> > suggest that there is a consensus morality among disparate religions.
>
> There is a consensus. =A0They all agree you should give them money :-).
>
Well, yes...of course. How else are you going to put gas in the rev's
tank so he can go out in the county and pray with the house-bound?

Very good point Leon. In fact and excellent point.

The media has, since the invention of the printing press, been heavily
biased - sometimes to the point of out and out libel. Today, Fox is
centerist/right. Most of the rest of the media are either left or hard
left.

TRUTH has been so marginalized and the whole concept of moral absolutes
debased that anything is now possible. Those who have fought so long and
hard against moral and philosophical absolutes seem not to like it
when "their chickens come home to roost."


Deb




Leon wrote:

>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:9e2d849e-18b4-4ffa-9f37-20b3aa08d8ca@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
>> By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
>> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
>> nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
>> major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
>> in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
>> Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
>> to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
>> technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
>> lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
>>
>>
http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
>>
>> PS. This ruling applies to all media. not just Fox. So all you Billo-
>> The-Clown-Hannity-Beck fans, keep your shirt on. Just keep on
>> defending those lying cocksuckers...oops, did I sound a bit too
>> liberal here?
>
> Well actually, they all have been lying for more years than you and I have
> been around. In the entertainment/media industry there is no honor, there
> is no need to put anything in perspective, and there is no monitary
> benefit
> for reporting the truth. You just have to realize that the media is for
> your entertainment. Only the wise can see this, the impressionable eat it
> up.

So.... Now ALL media is in the same league as our politicians?

cm


"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9e2d849e-18b4-4ffa-9f37-20b3aa08d8ca@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
> By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
> nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
> major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
> in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
> Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
> to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
> technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
> lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
>
> http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
>
> PS. This ruling applies to all media. not just Fox. So all you Billo-
> The-Clown-Hannity-Beck fans, keep your shirt on. Just keep on
> defending those lying cocksuckers...oops, did I sound a bit too
> liberal here?

HeyBub wrote:


> To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive, morality
> is conditional.
>
> To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the Church
> prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To the not-devout,
> the end justifies the means.

And an excellent reason why a democracy/republic that wants to survive
the test of time needs to seriously consider prohibiting graduates of a
law school (where blurring the distinction between morality and legality
is stressed/taught as a noble concept) from participating in the
_legislative_ branch of government.

A silly idea?

Just take a close look at your congress and the damage they wrought to
this country!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I will, you have to want to believe before you can see the obvious.
>>>
>>> If it's really obvious then you don't have to want to believe.
>>
>>
>> Well actually, have you ever heard the old saying, You can't see the
>> forrest for the trees? The same applies here. It helps to be open
>> to know how and what to look for.
>
> Then it can't be that obvious.

Actually shockingly obvious once you want and know what to look for.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

> And you go on about Judaism, "the Catholic tradition", and
> "the non-Catholic tradition", but you totally ignore the fact that
> most of
> the people in the world are not Jews or Christians.


Religion, the biggest con job on the planet, fed by the unwillingness
of man to accept death as being final.

Talk about total B/S.

Lew

"Leon" wrote:

> I will, you have to want to believe before you can see the obvious.


Yep, as the old saying goes, "You have to set up the mark before you
can run the con."

Lew

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> I will, you have to want to believe before you can see the obvious.
>
> If it's really obvious then you don't have to want to believe.


Well actually, have you ever heard the old saying, You can't see the
forrest for the trees? The same applies here. It helps to be open to know
how and what to look for.

"HeyBub" wrote:

> In my state, we used to have a rule that only property owners could
> vote on bond proposals - those guaranteed by property taxes. Courts
> struck it down.

Can't imagine why.


Lew

HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive,
>>>> morality is conditional.
>>>>
>>>> To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the
>>>> Church prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To
>>>> the not-devout, the end justifies the means.
>>> And an excellent reason why a democracy/republic that wants to
>>> survive the test of time needs to seriously consider prohibiting
>>> graduates of a law school (where blurring the distinction between
>>> morality and legality is stressed/taught as a noble concept) from
>>> participating in the _legislative_ branch of government.
>>>
>>> A silly idea?
>>>
>>> Just take a close look at your congress and the damage they wrought
>>> to this country!!
>> Bryan and I were having a discussion about morals and government this
>> morning. I thought a solution could be to pass a new law that
>> forbids any government office holders, or decision makers from
>> drawing a salary of any kind. Their work would be charity work much
>> like we citizens provide charity work when participating in jury
>> duty. While we do get paid for participating, perhaps we could also
>> allow a government official $6 per day for his contribution. Really
>> and truly when you actually see what public officials do, a week out
>> of their year should be adequate to handle government business.
>> Public officials should be considered "Public Servants", hummm, what
>> an idea.
>> Obviously public officials would have a regular job like the rest of
>> us for his or her financial needs. Public Officials taking bribes or
>> being directly compensated for his or her decision making would be
>> sentenced to life in prison. Special interest groups would be
>> illegal.
>
> Ah, a career path for HOA officers.
>
>> Further, ALL laws have to originate by a suggestion of the people and
>> then a vote by the people would decide as to whether they pass or
>> not. Suggestions by the people would be collected by a minimum of 3,
>> 3rd party public companies and the most popular suggestions from each
>> would be compared and published publicly for the people to vote on.
>>
>
> But if you do away with special interests, you have to do away with people
> voting.
>
> Special interests are the foil to the madness of crowds. Sometimes the
> special interests win, sometimes the mob wins. Most often they cancel each
> other.
>
> There is no BEST solution, but a better one is a monarchy.

And a better one than that is to, once again, allow only property owners
to vote.

The "right" to vote of "everyman" is what is ultimately going to lead to
the downfall of this republic.

Think about it ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I believe it was Mark Twain who wrote," If you don't read the newspaper
>you're uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you're misinformed."



LOL,, Excelent, that sounds like something he would have said. And I
totally agree, and I submit that it is better to be uninformed than
misinformed. About 14 years ago the Houston Chronicle bought out its
competition, the Houston Post. Within days the staff at the Post was fired
and that newspaper was shut down. I canceled my subscription immediately
with the Chronicle.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>
>> How did you end up with that swamp land?
>
> Who said I have any swampland, I just broker deals.
>
>
> Lew
>
>
TIME OUT!! Both of you!! Right now!!!

Robatoy wrote:
>
> Wouldn't that run the risk of Property Owners trying to control who is
> allowed to own property and who isn't? Not a smart-ass question, a
> serious one. It happens, you know..;-}

In my state, we used to have a rule that only property owners could vote on
bond proposals - those guaranteed by property taxes. Courts struck it down.

We also used to require voter registration in January for elections to be
held in November. Courts struck it down.

We used to have a "Poll Tax" of $1.25 (with provisions for indigencies).
Courts struck it down.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will, you have to want to believe before you can see the
>>>>>> obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's really obvious then you don't have to want to believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well actually, have you ever heard the old saying, You can't see
>>>> the forrest for the trees? The same applies here. It helps to be
>>>> open to know how and what to look for.
>>>
>>> Then it can't be that obvious.
>>
>> Actually shockingly obvious once you want and know what to look for.
>
> You keep using this word. I think it does not mean what you think it
> means.

If you knew you would agree. The obvious is ringt in front of you, open you
eyes! LOL

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>
>> To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive,
>> morality is conditional.
>>
>> To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the Church
>> prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To the
>> not-devout, the end justifies the means.
>
> And an excellent reason why a democracy/republic that wants to survive the
> test of time needs to seriously consider prohibiting graduates of a law
> school (where blurring the distinction between morality and legality is
> stressed/taught as a noble concept) from participating in the
> _legislative_ branch of government.
>
> A silly idea?
>
> Just take a close look at your congress and the damage they wrought to
> this country!!

Bryan and I were having a discussion about morals and government this
morning. I thought a solution could be to pass a new law that forbids any
government office holders, or decision makers from drawing a salary of any
kind. Their work would be charity work much like we citizens provide
charity work when participating in jury duty. While we do get paid for
participating, perhaps we could also allow a government official $6 per day
for his contribution. Really and truly when you actually see what public
officials do, a week out of their year should be adequate to handle
government business.
Public officials should be considered "Public Servants", hummm, what an
idea.
Obviously public officials would have a regular job like the rest of us for
his or her financial needs. Public Officials taking bribes or being
directly compensated for his or her decision making would be sentenced to
life in prison. Special interest groups would be illegal.


Further, ALL laws have to originate by a suggestion of the people and then a
vote by the people would decide as to whether they pass or not. Suggestions
by the people would be collected by a minimum of 3, 3rd party public
companies and the most popular suggestions from each would be compared and
published publicly for the people to vote on.

The government will operate on fixed budget and cannot over spend. This
absolutely should not be a problem once our government officials realize
that under the table donations and lobbyist would no longer be a reason to
stay in office.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> It is a shame that you have not witnessed a miracle, I think you would
>> quickly change your mind.
>
> Spare me.
>
> Lew
>
>

I will, you have to want to believe before you can see the obvious.

J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> In general, if it has exceptions, it's not absolute (but it could
>> still be moral).
>>
>> In Judaism (for example) there are three conditions in which one must
>> accept death rather than be forced to commit an act: idolatry,
>> murder, and adultry. Most other religions have similar absolutes.
>>
>> To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive,
>> morality is conditional.
>>
>> To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the
>> Church prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To
>> the not-devout, the end justifies the means.
>
> If all churches had the _same_ absolutes then one could argue that
> they are moral absolutes. As things stand they are edicts by church
> authorities.

Not exactly. In Judaism, the method for interpretation is vested within the
revealed word of God himself ("If a matter comes before you, take it to the
Sages of the Generation and be bound thereby"). In the Catholic tradition,
the authority for interpretation is vested with the Church as an institution
("As you ordain on earth, so shall it be in heaven"). In the non-Catholic
tradition, authority is placed upon the individual, guided by the Holy
Spirit ("Whatever").

Mostly, these different methods reach the same conclusion, i.e., murder is
prohibited.

Sometimes these methods reach different conclusions, i.e., abortion. The
Church says "never;" Judaism says "sometimes yes, but mostly no;" The
non-Catholic tradition generally has no institutional standard on the issue.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:44:43 -0500, Leon wrote:
>
>> Special interest groups would be illegal.
>
> But who defines what would constitute a special interest group?
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Those that approach government officials/decision makers directly would be
illegal.

There is no reason to make direct contact with the government
Officials/Public Servants. The "legal" special interest groups can approach
the public to suggest items that may be submitted by the people and voted on
by the people for popular suggestions to be passed into law. And then of
course the public will vote to pass or fail the new suggested law. Public
officials/Public Servants would simply implement the new laws created by the
people.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...


> >I think most folks can agree on that. Innocent of what, though? I think
> >that may cause considerable debate, since one person's innocent may be
> >another's mortal sin. Take shaving, for example. In some places it is a
> >sin worth your life to have a shaven face; in others it has no moral value
> >at all, and in still others it is cause for discrimination to wear a beard.
> >For another example, if one accepts the doctrine of Original Sin, then
> >abortion is not wrong since the fetus, before baptism, is in a state of
> >mortal sin and not, therefore, innocent.
>
> That is incorrect.

Then argue your case.

"Leon" wrote:

> There are non believers, that is inevetable. But I have seen proof
> time and again in beyond "explain it away" detail and often before
> the event happens. Seeing is believing.

There is some swamp land over in Arizona we ought to talk about.

Lew

Edward A. Falk wrote:

> They're not called Faux News for nothing.

<yawn> Sure, and you just proved your own sterling objectivity by
spewing childish, knee jerk crap?

Grow up ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Leon" wrote:

> It is a shame that you have not witnessed a miracle, I think you
> would quickly change your mind.

Spare me.

Lew

Leon wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>
>>> To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive,
>>> morality is conditional.
>>>
>>> To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the
>>> Church prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To
>>> the not-devout, the end justifies the means.
>>
>> And an excellent reason why a democracy/republic that wants to
>> survive the test of time needs to seriously consider prohibiting
>> graduates of a law school (where blurring the distinction between
>> morality and legality is stressed/taught as a noble concept) from
>> participating in the _legislative_ branch of government.
>>
>> A silly idea?
>>
>> Just take a close look at your congress and the damage they wrought
>> to this country!!
>
> Bryan and I were having a discussion about morals and government this
> morning. I thought a solution could be to pass a new law that
> forbids any government office holders, or decision makers from
> drawing a salary of any kind. Their work would be charity work much
> like we citizens provide charity work when participating in jury
> duty. While we do get paid for participating, perhaps we could also
> allow a government official $6 per day for his contribution. Really
> and truly when you actually see what public officials do, a week out
> of their year should be adequate to handle government business.
> Public officials should be considered "Public Servants", hummm, what
> an idea.
> Obviously public officials would have a regular job like the rest of
> us for his or her financial needs. Public Officials taking bribes or
> being directly compensated for his or her decision making would be
> sentenced to life in prison. Special interest groups would be
> illegal.

Ah, a career path for HOA officers.

>
> Further, ALL laws have to originate by a suggestion of the people and
> then a vote by the people would decide as to whether they pass or
> not. Suggestions by the people would be collected by a minimum of 3,
> 3rd party public companies and the most popular suggestions from each
> would be compared and published publicly for the people to vote on.
>

But if you do away with special interests, you have to do away with people
voting.

Special interests are the foil to the madness of crowds. Sometimes the
special interests win, sometimes the mob wins. Most often they cancel each
other.

There is no BEST solution, but a better one is a monarchy.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jun 28, 8:02 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> >> And you go on about Judaism, "the Catholic tradition", and
> >> "the non-Catholic tradition", but you totally ignore the fact that most
> >> of
> >> the people in the world are not Jews or Christians.
>
> > Religion, the biggest con job on the planet, fed by the unwillingness of
> > man to accept death as being final.
>
> > Talk about total B/S.
>
> > Lew
>
> It is a shame that you have not witnessed a miracle, I think you would
> quickly change your mind.

I have witnessed a miracle. A real one. Too bad this forum has a few
people who would like to take potshots at the story if I told it.
And we ain't talking Jesus' image in burnt toast here.

Your sister, me too. My sister just came home from the hospital and what
happened to her this month shook some in our family.

"Leon" wrote:

> Yeah, and that worked for a long time. Now, that has all changed,
> we cannot trust public officials with our money or to make good
> decisions. We need new laws to protect us from our elected
> officials.

Like it or not the country operates on a strong federal government.

Seems among other things we fought a war to prove it, but still have
folks trying to promote states rights, but face it, it's never going
to happen.

From time to time, the federal gogernment does a few things you don't
like, but that's life.

Might as well enjoy the ride..

Lew

In article <[email protected]>, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Jim
>> Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Could you give an example of a moral absolute that does not have
>>>exceptions?
>>
>> It is always wrong to take innocent life.
>
>I think most folks can agree on that. Innocent of what, though? I think
>that may cause considerable debate, since one person's innocent may be
>another's mortal sin. Take shaving, for example. In some places it is a
>sin worth your life to have a shaven face; in others it has no moral value
>at all, and in still others it is cause for discrimination to wear a beard.
>For another example, if one accepts the doctrine of Original Sin, then
>abortion is not wrong since the fetus, before baptism, is in a state of
>mortal sin and not, therefore, innocent.

That is incorrect.

> (If one does not accept the
>doctrine of Original Sin, the whole point of Christianity becomes kinda
>moot.)

In article <[email protected]>, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:

>Could you give an example of a moral absolute that does not have
>exceptions?

It is always wrong to take innocent life.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:44:43 -0500, Leon wrote:

> Special interest groups would be illegal.

But who defines what would constitute a special interest group?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Leon" wrote:


> How did you end up with that swamp land?

Who said I have any swampland, I just broker deals.


Lew

"Dr. Deb" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
>
> Very good point Leon. In fact and excellent point.
>
> The media has, since the invention of the printing press, been heavily
> biased - sometimes to the point of out and out libel. Today, Fox is
> centerist/right. Most of the rest of the media are either left or
> hard left.
>
> TRUTH has been so marginalized and the whole concept of moral
> absolutes debased that anything is now possible. Those who have
> fought so long and hard against moral and philosophical absolutes seem
> not to like it when "their chickens come home to roost."
>
>

Could you give an example of a moral absolute that does not have
exceptions?

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, Jim
> Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:
>
>>Could you give an example of a moral absolute that does not have
>>exceptions?
>
> It is always wrong to take innocent life.

I think most folks can agree on that. Innocent of what, though? I think
that may cause considerable debate, since one person's innocent may be
another's mortal sin. Take shaving, for example. In some places it is a
sin worth your life to have a shaven face; in others it has no moral value
at all, and in still others it is cause for discrimination to wear a beard.
For another example, if one accepts the doctrine of Original Sin, then
abortion is not wrong since the fetus, before baptism, is in a state of
mortal sin and not, therefore, innocent. (If one does not accept the
doctrine of Original Sin, the whole point of Christianity becomes kinda
moot.)

Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>(If one does not accept the doctrine of Original Sin, the
> whole point of Christianity becomes kinda moot.)

From your mouth to God's ear, so to speak.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


>> Religion, the biggest con job on the planet, fed by the unwillingness
>> of man to accept death as being final.
>>
>> Talk about total B/S.

> It is a shame that you have not witnessed a miracle, I think you would
> quickly change your mind.

The SawStop demo doesn't count as a miracle, Leon.

Swingman wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>
>> To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive,
>> morality is conditional.
>>
>> To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the
>> Church prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To
>> the not-devout, the end justifies the means.
>
> And an excellent reason why a democracy/republic that wants to survive
> the test of time needs to seriously consider prohibiting graduates of
> a law school (where blurring the distinction between morality and
> legality is stressed/taught as a noble concept) from participating in
> the _legislative_ branch of government.
>

You paint with too broad a brush. It's a mere 95% of lawyers who give the
rest a bad name.

J. Clarke wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes these methods reach different conclusions, i.e.,
>>>> abortion. The Church says "never;" Judaism says "sometimes yes,
>>>> but mostly no;" The non-Catholic tradition generally has no
>>>> institutional standard on the issue.
>>>
>>> Which is all a bunch of bury 'em in BS bafflegab that ignores the
>>> point, which is that there is little agreement among the major
>>> religions on what constitutes morality, making the decision an
>>> arbitrary one by some authority or other (since you are being as
>>> pedantic as an Asperger's patient about the word "church"). And you
>>> go on about Judaism, "the Catholic tradition", and "the non-Catholic
>>> tradition", but you totally ignore the fact that most of the people
>>> in the world are not Jews or Christians.
>>
>> Sorry, I wasn't trying to establish a primer on the religions of the
>> world - I was just offering examples.
>
> The trouble is that you selected your examples in such a way as to
> suggest that there is a consensus morality among disparate religions.

I selected religions with which I'm most familiar and which most people in
the U.S. have some passing acquaintance. Further, I specifically pointed out
that even when there is a seeming consensus, the results can differ
significantly.

SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> I seem to recall something about freedom of speech. Of course lying is
> legal.

Not in all circumstances. In a courtroom it's called purjury and is a
punishable offence. In advertising it's called false advertising and is
not allowed. If it's about other people, in many circumstances you can
be held responsible for libel or slander.

I think that media outlets should have some leeway for actual
_mistakes_, but they should be forced to give their corrections equal
publicity as the mistakes themselves and they should be subject to being
sued for compensation if their statements caused harm and a reasonable
person would have expected them to get the facts right.

For out-and-out lying, where the person is uttering statements that they
themselves consider to be false, that should not be tolerated from the
media.

Chris

"Douglas Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 29, 10:09 am, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> > In article <[email protected]>, Jim
>>> > Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Could you give an example of a moral absolute that does not have
>>> >> exceptions?
>>>
>>> > It is always wrong to take innocent life.
>>>
>>> A ship is at sea and takes a torpedo to one of the forward compartments.
>>> The Captain orders the watertight doors sealed to preserve the ship
>>> while several seamen are still below that compartment. Several innocent
>>> lives are lost, but the remainder of the ship's compliment is saved.
>>>
>>> Was the Captain wrong?
>>
>>The captain ordering the torpedo launch took the "innocent" life. The
>>captain on the receiving end was mitigating loss, as is his primary
>>responsibility. Replace "torpedo" with "ice berg" and your point
>>stands, though.
>
> Are you saying the rightness or wrongness of the Captain's decision
> depends on
> what caused the hole in the ship? -- Doug

No, Your example introduced another consideration for blame. The captain
firing the torpedo is absolutely the one responsibile for the loss of life
on the ship that he attacked. The decision of the captain of the attacked
ship was forced up on him. He did not make a decision with out just cause.
Regardless of which decision he made lives were already predetermined to be
lost, his decisions were to minimise lost lives.

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 29, 10:09 am, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Could you give an example of a moral absolute that does not have
>> >> exceptions?
>>
>> > It is always wrong to take innocent life.
>>
>> A ship is at sea and takes a torpedo to one of the forward compartments.
>>   The Captain orders the watertight doors sealed to preserve the ship
>> while several seamen are still below that compartment.  Several innocent
>> lives are lost, but the remainder of the ship's compliment is saved.
>>
>> Was the Captain wrong?
>
>The captain ordering the torpedo launch took the "innocent" life. The
>captain on the receiving end was mitigating loss, as is his primary
>responsibility. Replace "torpedo" with "ice berg" and your point
>stands, though.

Are you saying the rightness or wrongness of the Captain's decision depends on
what caused the hole in the ship? -- Doug

On Jun 26, 6:37=A0pm, "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Under oath, making a claim for contract, personal liable and slander,
> all valid offenses and laws in-place to deal with it. Freedom of the
> press and freedom of speech have a cost, just like many other rights.
> Not a perfect situation but the best on the earth. I am just saying
> don't believe everything you hear because they have the perfect right
> to say anything they want, within the bounds as set by law and as of
> yet, the press has not been bound by anyones concept of truth. It just
> hasn't. If you had a contract with them that they indicated they would
> only tell you the truth and you also paid some consideration (ie
> money) to become party to that offer, then you have a case. If they
> spew words out into the air and you believe them, that is your risk.
> The fact that you pay for cable doesn't in itself ensure the "news"
> will be anything othet than entertainment unless some specific claim
> is made and even then if it isn't done in a contractural manner, it is
> still just words. We need to read the fine print.
>
> Any media outlet has the opportunity to make such claims of honesty
> and maybe some have and if this is a valid contract offering then they
> could be held liable. But just because the government lets them use
> the airwaves, we have not yet revoked their liberty to have free
> speech outside the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater" type
> test. This is the unsolvable "abstract right" argument that is most
> often used by the left but one of those imperfect liberties that make
> our country (the USA) the greatest on earth.
>
> On Jun 26, 2:45=A0pm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> > > I seem to recall something about freedom of speech. Of course lying i=
s
> > > legal.
>
> > Not in all circumstances. =A0In a courtroom it's called purjury and is =
a
> > punishable offence. =A0In advertising it's called false advertising and=
is
> > not allowed. =A0If it's about other people, in many circumstances you c=
an
> > be held responsible for libel or slander.
>
> > I think that media outlets should have some leeway for actual
> > _mistakes_, but they should be forced to give their corrections equal
> > publicity as the mistakes themselves and they should be subject to bein=
g
> > sued for compensation if their statements caused harm and a reasonable
> > person would have expected them to get the facts right.
>
> > For out-and-out lying, where the person is uttering statements that the=
y
> > themselves consider to be false, that should not be tolerated from the
> > media.
>
> > Chris

Too bad for you SonomaProducts and your belief that it's okay for the
news media to lie - it was given a high purpose and special
protections to serve the public interest not corporate interests and
greed!
Listen to the late Pres. Kennedy's speech on the topic...
http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/archive-22-=
march-2009.html

Under oath, making a claim for contract, personal liable and slander,
all valid offenses and laws in-place to deal with it. Freedom of the
press and freedom of speech have a cost, just like many other rights.
Not a perfect situation but the best on the earth. I am just saying
don't believe everything you hear because they have the perfect right
to say anything they want, within the bounds as set by law and as of
yet, the press has not been bound by anyones concept of truth. It just
hasn't. If you had a contract with them that they indicated they would
only tell you the truth and you also paid some consideration (ie
money) to become party to that offer, then you have a case. If they
spew words out into the air and you believe them, that is your risk.
The fact that you pay for cable doesn't in itself ensure the "news"
will be anything othet than entertainment unless some specific claim
is made and even then if it isn't done in a contractural manner, it is
still just words. We need to read the fine print.

Any media outlet has the opportunity to make such claims of honesty
and maybe some have and if this is a valid contract offering then they
could be held liable. But just because the government lets them use
the airwaves, we have not yet revoked their liberty to have free
speech outside the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater" type
test. This is the unsolvable "abstract right" argument that is most
often used by the left but one of those imperfect liberties that make
our country (the USA) the greatest on earth.

On Jun 26, 2:45=A0pm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> > I seem to recall something about freedom of speech. Of course lying is
> > legal.
>
> Not in all circumstances. =A0In a courtroom it's called purjury and is a
> punishable offence. =A0In advertising it's called false advertising and i=
s
> not allowed. =A0If it's about other people, in many circumstances you can
> be held responsible for libel or slander.
>
> I think that media outlets should have some leeway for actual
> _mistakes_, but they should be forced to give their corrections equal
> publicity as the mistakes themselves and they should be subject to being
> sued for compensation if their statements caused harm and a reasonable
> person would have expected them to get the facts right.
>
> For out-and-out lying, where the person is uttering statements that they
> themselves consider to be false, that should not be tolerated from the
> media.
>
> Chris

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9e2d849e-18b4-4ffa-9f37-20b3aa08d8ca@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
> By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
> nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
> major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
> in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
> Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
> to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
> technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
> lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
>
> http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
>
> PS. This ruling applies to all media. not just Fox. So all you Billo-
> The-Clown-Hannity-Beck fans, keep your shirt on. Just keep on
> defending those lying cocksuckers...oops, did I sound a bit too
> liberal here?

Well actually, they all have been lying for more years than you and I have
been around. In the entertainment/media industry there is no honor, there
is no need to put anything in perspective, and there is no monitary benefit
for reporting the truth. You just have to realize that the media is for
your entertainment. Only the wise can see this, the impressionable eat it
up.

On Jun 29, 8:09=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Leon wrote:
>
> >> I will, you have to want to believe before you can see the obvious.
>
> > If it's really obvious then you don't have to want to believe.
>
> Well actually, =A0have you ever heard the old saying, =A0You can't see th=
e
> forrest for the trees? =A0The same applies here. =A0It helps to be open t=
o know
> how and what to look for.

There are those who think they're the reason the whole universe
exists. It is usually those folks who think it is perfectly normal for
an intelligent human being to have evolved from an amoeba. Many still
think like an amoeba. Their world must be so grey.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Those that approach government officials/decision makers directly would
>> be illegal.
>>
>> There is no reason to make direct contact with the government
>> Officials/Public Servants. The "legal" special interest groups can
>> approach the public to suggest items that may be submitted by the people
>> and voted on by the people for popular suggestions to be passed into
>> law. And then of course the public will vote to pass or fail the new
>> suggested law. Public officials/Public Servants would simply implement
>> the new laws created by the people.
>
> Precisely why we have a Republic, not a Democracy.
>
> The founders did not trust the people to make good decisions.
>
> Lew

Yeah, and that worked for a long time. Now, that has all changed, we cannot
trust public officials with our money or to make good decisions. We need
new laws to protect us from our elected officials.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>>> And you go on about Judaism, "the Catholic tradition", and
>>> "the non-Catholic tradition", but you totally ignore the fact that most
>>> of
>>> the people in the world are not Jews or Christians.
>>
>>
>> Religion, the biggest con job on the planet, fed by the unwillingness of
>> man to accept death as being final.
>>
>> Talk about total B/S.
>>
>> Lew
>
>
> It is a shame that you have not witnessed a miracle, I think you would
> quickly change your mind.

The confluence of fortuitous circumstances does *not* constitute a miracle.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 6/26/2009 8:13 PM HeyBub spake thus:
>
>> Go back with me now, to yesteryear of 1998, two shacked-up
>> journalists sitting around their hand-me-down kitchen table,
>> sweaters piling at the elbows, earth-shoes at the ready, and they
>> make a decision: Jane: "I can no longer sit back and allow Fox
>> infiltration, Fox
>> indoctrination, Fox subversion, and the international NewsCorp
>> conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
>> It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced
>> into our precious bodily fluids, without the knowledge of the
>> individual, certainly without any choice. That's the way a hard-core
>> Murdoch works."
>
> Your Murdochean "analysis" sucks, but at least I can appreciate your
> homage to Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove".

Whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a
single slip-up...

Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:42:05 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
>> nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by
>> a major press organization.
>
>
> Old news, by about 6 1/2 years?
>
> What else can be expected when the press is, for all practical
> purposes, legally shielded from libel and slander laws.
>
> The only hard information I see in the link is that a jury award was
> reversed by appellate court in 2003. All the rest appears to be
> commentary/editorializing/extrapolation/etc.

I used to live with a "journalist". She had been taught in school that it
is a journalist's job to know nothing at all about the subject being
reported. The sad thing is that she was quite bright but had been taught to
not think.

SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> Under oath, making a claim for contract, personal liable and slander,
> all valid offenses and laws in-place to deal with it. Freedom of the
> press and freedom of speech have a cost, just like many other rights.
> Not a perfect situation but the best on the earth. I am just saying
> don't believe everything you hear because they have the perfect right
> to say anything they want, within the bounds as set by law and as of
> yet, the press has not been bound by anyones concept of truth. It just
> hasn't. If you had a contract with them that they indicated they would
> only tell you the truth and you also paid some consideration (ie
> money) to become party to that offer, then you have a case. If they
> spew words out into the air and you believe them, that is your risk.
> The fact that you pay for cable doesn't in itself ensure the "news"
> will be anything othet than entertainment unless some specific claim
> is made and even then if it isn't done in a contractural manner, it is
> still just words. We need to read the fine print.
>
> Any media outlet has the opportunity to make such claims of honesty
> and maybe some have and if this is a valid contract offering then they
> could be held liable. But just because the government lets them use
> the airwaves, we have not yet revoked their liberty to have free
> speech outside the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater" type
> test. This is the unsolvable "abstract right" argument that is most
> often used by the left but one of those imperfect liberties that make
> our country (the USA) the greatest on earth.

Ultimately the "press" is going to destroy itself. If it holds itself to no
higher standard than a raving blogger then what does it have to offer that
the raving blogger doesn't have?

HeyBub wrote:
> Jim Willemin wrote:
>> "Dr. Deb" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very good point Leon. In fact and excellent point.
>>>
>>> The media has, since the invention of the printing press, been
>>> heavily biased - sometimes to the point of out and out libel.
>>> Today, Fox is centerist/right. Most of the rest of the media are
>>> either left or hard left.
>>>
>>> TRUTH has been so marginalized and the whole concept of moral
>>> absolutes debased that anything is now possible. Those who have
>>> fought so long and hard against moral and philosophical absolutes
>>> seem not to like it when "their chickens come home to roost."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Could you give an example of a moral absolute that does not have
>> exceptions?
>
> In general, if it has exceptions, it's not absolute (but it could
> still be moral).
>
> In Judaism (for example) there are three conditions in which one must
> accept death rather than be forced to commit an act: idolatry,
> murder, and adultry. Most other religions have similar absolutes.
>
> To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive,
> morality is conditional.
>
> To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the
> Church prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To
> the not-devout, the end justifies the means.

If all churches had the _same_ absolutes then one could argue that they are
moral absolutes. As things stand they are edicts by church authorities.

Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:11:17 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And an excellent reason why a democracy/republic that wants to
>> survive the test of time needs to seriously consider prohibiting
>> graduates of a law school ... from participating in the
>> _legislative_ branch of government.
>>
>> A silly idea?
>
> Not in my opinion. I've long felt that lawyers should be banned from
> approaching within 500 yards any legislature or courtroom.

If lawyers are to be banned from the courtroom then what is the point of
having them?

HeyBub wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> In general, if it has exceptions, it's not absolute (but it could
>>> still be moral).
>>>
>>> In Judaism (for example) there are three conditions in which one
>>> must accept death rather than be forced to commit an act: idolatry,
>>> murder, and adultry. Most other religions have similar absolutes.
>>>
>>> To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive,
>>> morality is conditional.
>>>
>>> To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the
>>> Church prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To
>>> the not-devout, the end justifies the means.
>>
>> If all churches had the _same_ absolutes then one could argue that
>> they are moral absolutes. As things stand they are edicts by church
>> authorities.
>
> Not exactly. In Judaism, the method for interpretation is vested
> within the revealed word of God himself ("If a matter comes before
> you, take it to the Sages of the Generation and be bound thereby").
> In the Catholic tradition, the authority for interpretation is vested
> with the Church as an institution ("As you ordain on earth, so shall
> it be in heaven"). In the non-Catholic tradition, authority is placed
> upon the individual, guided by the Holy Spirit ("Whatever").
>
> Mostly, these different methods reach the same conclusion, i.e.,
> murder is prohibited.
>
> Sometimes these methods reach different conclusions, i.e., abortion.
> The Church says "never;" Judaism says "sometimes yes, but mostly no;"
> The non-Catholic tradition generally has no institutional standard on
> the issue.

Which is all a bunch of bury 'em in BS bafflegab that ignores the point,
which is that there is little agreement among the major religions on what
constitutes morality, making the decision an arbitrary one by some authority
or other (since you are being as pedantic as an Asperger's patient about the
word "church"). And you go on about Judaism, "the Catholic tradition", and
"the non-Catholic tradition", but you totally ignore the fact that most of
the people in the world are not Jews or Christians.

When Texas succeeds from the Union, and you and Leon run it, I'll be
sneaking across the border, tri-square in hand, hammer and sickle left
at the border.

Jack

Swingman wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive,
>>>>> morality is conditional.
>>>>>
>>>>> To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the
>>>>> Church prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To
>>>>> the not-devout, the end justifies the means.
>>>> And an excellent reason why a democracy/republic that wants to
>>>> survive the test of time needs to seriously consider prohibiting
>>>> graduates of a law school (where blurring the distinction between
>>>> morality and legality is stressed/taught as a noble concept) from
>>>> participating in the _legislative_ branch of government.
>>>>
>>>> A silly idea?
>>>>
>>>> Just take a close look at your congress and the damage they wrought
>>>> to this country!!
>>> Bryan and I were having a discussion about morals and government this
>>> morning. I thought a solution could be to pass a new law that
>>> forbids any government office holders, or decision makers from
>>> drawing a salary of any kind. Their work would be charity work much
>>> like we citizens provide charity work when participating in jury
>>> duty. While we do get paid for participating, perhaps we could also
>>> allow a government official $6 per day for his contribution. Really
>>> and truly when you actually see what public officials do, a week out
>>> of their year should be adequate to handle government business.
>>> Public officials should be considered "Public Servants", hummm, what
>>> an idea.
>>> Obviously public officials would have a regular job like the rest of
>>> us for his or her financial needs. Public Officials taking bribes or
>>> being directly compensated for his or her decision making would be
>>> sentenced to life in prison. Special interest groups would be
>>> illegal.
>>
>> Ah, a career path for HOA officers.
>>
>>> Further, ALL laws have to originate by a suggestion of the people and
>>> then a vote by the people would decide as to whether they pass or
>>> not. Suggestions by the people would be collected by a minimum of 3,
>>> 3rd party public companies and the most popular suggestions from each
>>> would be compared and published publicly for the people to vote on.
>>>
>>
>> But if you do away with special interests, you have to do away with
>> people voting.
>>
>> Special interests are the foil to the madness of crowds. Sometimes the
>> special interests win, sometimes the mob wins. Most often they cancel
>> each other.
>>
>> There is no BEST solution, but a better one is a monarchy.
>
> And a better one than that is to, once again, allow only property owners
> to vote.
>
> The "right" to vote of "everyman" is what is ultimately going to lead to
> the downfall of this republic.
>
> Think about it ...
>


--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

HeyBub wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> Sometimes these methods reach different conclusions, i.e., abortion.
>>> The Church says "never;" Judaism says "sometimes yes, but mostly
>>> no;" The non-Catholic tradition generally has no institutional
>>> standard on the issue.
>>
>> Which is all a bunch of bury 'em in BS bafflegab that ignores the
>> point, which is that there is little agreement among the major
>> religions on what constitutes morality, making the decision an
>> arbitrary one by some authority or other (since you are being as
>> pedantic as an Asperger's patient about the word "church"). And you
>> go on about Judaism, "the Catholic tradition", and "the non-Catholic
>> tradition", but you totally ignore the fact that most of the people
>> in the world are not Jews or Christians.
>
> Sorry, I wasn't trying to establish a primer on the religions of the
> world - I was just offering examples.

The trouble is that you selected your examples in such a way as to suggest
that there is a consensus morality among disparate religions.

Leon wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" wrote:
>>
>>> Those that approach government officials/decision makers directly
>>> would be illegal.
>>>
>>> There is no reason to make direct contact with the government
>>> Officials/Public Servants. The "legal" special interest groups can
>>> approach the public to suggest items that may be submitted by the
>>> people and voted on by the people for popular suggestions to be
>>> passed into law. And then of course the public will vote to pass
>>> or fail the new suggested law. Public officials/Public Servants
>>> would simply implement the new laws created by the people.
>>
>> Precisely why we have a Republic, not a Democracy.
>>
>> The founders did not trust the people to make good decisions.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Yeah, and that worked for a long time. Now, that has all changed, we
> cannot trust public officials with our money or to make good
> decisions. We need new laws to protect us from our elected officials.

How about we go back to the system that worked--candidates selected in smoke
filled back rooms instead of by popular vote, senators selected by state
legislators, and that sort of thing?

Leon wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" wrote:
>>
>>> It is a shame that you have not witnessed a miracle, I think you
>>> would quickly change your mind.
>>
>> Spare me.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>
> I will, you have to want to believe before you can see the obvious.

If it's really obvious then you don't have to want to believe.

Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> I will, you have to want to believe before you can see the obvious.
>>
>> If it's really obvious then you don't have to want to believe.
>
>
> Well actually, have you ever heard the old saying, You can't see the
> forrest for the trees? The same applies here. It helps to be open
> to know how and what to look for.

Then it can't be that obvious.

Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I will, you have to want to believe before you can see the
>>>>> obvious.
>>>>
>>>> If it's really obvious then you don't have to want to believe.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well actually, have you ever heard the old saying, You can't see
>>> the forrest for the trees? The same applies here. It helps to be
>>> open to know how and what to look for.
>>
>> Then it can't be that obvious.
>
> Actually shockingly obvious once you want and know what to look for.

You keep using this word. I think it does not mean what you think it means.

Actually, IIRC, the FCC does have a regulation against knowingly
broadcasting false reports. Or at least they did; a lot could
have changed since I last worked in radio.

Akre would have done better to complain to the FCC and/or just
publicly denounce Fox.

They're not called Faux News for nothing.

--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

Jack Stein wrote:
> When Texas succeeds from the Union, and you and Leon run it, I'll be
> sneaking across the border, tri-square in hand, hammer and sickle left
> at the border.
>
> Jack
>

In many areas, Texas has already succeeded.

But come on in... We have a special place for those who can say: "I wasn't
born in Texas, but I got here as quick as I could."

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

>>
>> Are you saying the rightness or wrongness of the Captain's decision
>> depends on
>> what caused the hole in the ship? -- Doug

Uh doh!

Yes, I believe that is what he is saying. Sorry. The captain should not
hav been anywhere near the ice berg.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:35:21 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>If lawyers are to be banned from the courtroom then what is the point of
>having them?

Maybe for wills, contracts, and other civil matters.

I understand England has two categories of what we call lawyers,
barristers who go to court and solicitors (?) who handle the other
stuff. It must work, they've done it that way for a long time (I
assume), but I wonder if it's really any better or just different from
the way we do it in the US.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> There are non believers, that is inevetable. But I have seen proof time
>> and again in beyond "explain it away" detail and often before the event
>> happens. Seeing is believing.
>
> There is some swamp land over in Arizona we ought to talk about.
>
> Lew
>
>

How did you end up with that swamp land?

"Leon" wrote:

> Those that approach government officials/decision makers directly
> would be illegal.
>
> There is no reason to make direct contact with the government
> Officials/Public Servants. The "legal" special interest groups can
> approach the public to suggest items that may be submitted by the
> people and voted on by the people for popular suggestions to be
> passed into law. And then of course the public will vote to pass
> or fail the new suggested law. Public officials/Public Servants
> would simply implement the new laws created by the people.

Precisely why we have a Republic, not a Democracy.

The founders did not trust the people to make good decisions.

Lew

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:09:25 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Religion, the biggest con job on the planet, fed by the unwillingness
>of man to accept death as being final.
>
>Talk about total B/S.

Dammit, Lew, I find myself agreeing with you all too often. I better
go check the shelf life on my meds.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward A. Falk wrote:
>
>> They're not called Faux News for nothing.
>
> <yawn> Sure, and you just proved your own sterling objectivity by spewing
> childish, knee jerk crap?
>
> Grow up ...


Wouldn't Faux be pronounced "Foe". LOL

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:42:05 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
>nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
>major press organization.


Old news, by about 6 1/2 years?

What else can be expected when the press is, for all practical
purposes, legally shielded from libel and slander laws.

The only hard information I see in the link is that a jury award was
reversed by appellate court in 2003. All the rest appears to be
commentary/editorializing/extrapolation/etc.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Edward A. Falk wrote:
> Actually, IIRC, the FCC does have a regulation against knowingly
> broadcasting false reports. Or at least they did; a lot could
> have changed since I last worked in radio.
>
> Akre would have done better to complain to the FCC and/or just
> publicly denounce Fox.
>
> They're not called Faux News for nothing.

The problem is, they're not any worse than anyone else really, all news
outlets have let politics dictate which news they report and how they
report it, there's no such thing as fair reporting anymore. The problem
with Fox is that they pretend to be "fair and balanced" and are anything
but. They don't even pretend to be, they are far-right
ultra-conservative shills and unapologetically so.

Expecting any news outlet to be unbiased is a thing of the past.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e4da4d59-c447-439c-85fa-62f9db843eb3@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

There are those who think they're the reason the whole universe
exists. It is usually those folks who think it is perfectly normal for
an intelligent human being to have evolved from an amoeba. Many still
think like an amoeba. Their world must be so grey.


The theory of Evolution concerning humans "CRAKES" me up. First there was
NOTHING there there was'nt, that is not evolution! Some simply can't think
out side of the box, so to speak.

Lee Michaels wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote
>> If lawyers are to be banned from the courtroom then what is the point of
>> having them?
>>
> Target practice??

LMAO!!


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Robatoy wrote:
> Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
> By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
> nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
> major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
> in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
> Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
> to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
> technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
> lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
>
> http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
>
> PS. This ruling applies to all media. not just Fox. So all you Billo-
> The-Clown-Hannity-Beck fans, keep your shirt on. Just keep on
> defending those lying cocksuckers...oops, did I sound a bit too
> liberal here?

This case centered around administering growth hormone to milk cows.

Go back with me now, to yesteryear of 1998, two shacked-up journalists
sitting around their hand-me-down kitchen table, sweaters piling at the
elbows, earth-shoes at the ready, and they make a decision:

Jane: "I can no longer sit back and allow Fox infiltration, Fox
indoctrination, Fox subversion, and the international NewsCorp conspiracy to
sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. It's incredibly obvious,
isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids,
without the knowledge of the individual, certainly without any choice.
That's the way a hard-core Murdoch works."

Steve: "God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in
true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God
bless you all."

High-fives all around and the crusade begins.

-----

"Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, the two former FOX Television (WTVT-13)
journalists have filed appeals of a ruling that they must pay the legal
costs and fees the broadcaster incurred defending itself in a landmark
whistleblower case the reporters filed in 1998. The journalists estimate FOX
spent than a million dollars on its defense." [Case is still pending.]

http://www.purefood.org/rbgh/030703_rbgh.cfm

At least they can take comfort in the mantra: "The facts were wrong but the
narrative was correct."

-------
Jane Akre is now editor-in-chief of the national news desk for
www.injuryboard.com . Injuryboard.com is a stalking-horse for the injury
lawyer bar.

"Tom Veatch" wrote:

> That process is already well underway. Newspapers seem to be
> struggling and/or failing right and left. Our local paper is a mere
> shadow of its former self.

The digital revolution is certain to totally change print media as we
know it.

Major sources of newspaper revenue, department store and auto dealer
advertising income is dying on the vine along with classified
advertising.

Without an income stream, you don't survive.

Lew

Jim Willemin wrote:
> "Dr. Deb" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> Very good point Leon. In fact and excellent point.
>>
>> The media has, since the invention of the printing press, been
>> heavily biased - sometimes to the point of out and out libel.
>> Today, Fox is centerist/right. Most of the rest of the media are
>> either left or hard left.
>>
>> TRUTH has been so marginalized and the whole concept of moral
>> absolutes debased that anything is now possible. Those who have
>> fought so long and hard against moral and philosophical absolutes
>> seem not to like it when "their chickens come home to roost."
>>
>>
>
> Could you give an example of a moral absolute that does not have
> exceptions?

In general, if it has exceptions, it's not absolute (but it could still be
moral).

In Judaism (for example) there are three conditions in which one must accept
death rather than be forced to commit an act: idolatry, murder, and adultry.
Most other religions have similar absolutes.

To the religious, morality IS absolute. To the secular progressive, morality
is conditional.

To the devout, no good can come from an immoral act (therefore the Church
prohibits abortion even to save the life of the mother). To the not-devout,
the end justifies the means.

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

>>
>> Bryan and I were having a discussion about morals and government this
>> morning. I thought a solution could be to pass a new law that
>> forbids any government office holders, or decision makers from
>> drawing a salary of any kind. Their work would be charity work much
>> like we citizens provide charity work when participating in jury
>> duty. While we do get paid for participating, perhaps we could also
>> allow a government official $6 per day for his contribution. Really
>> and truly when you actually see what public officials do, a week out
>> of their year should be adequate to handle government business.
>> Public officials should be considered "Public Servants", hummm, what
>> an idea.
>> Obviously public officials would have a regular job like the rest of
>> us for his or her financial needs. Public Officials taking bribes or
>> being directly compensated for his or her decision making would be
>> sentenced to life in prison. Special interest groups would be
>> illegal.
>
> Ah, a career path for HOA officers.

Similar except they would be under scruteny of th epublic and governed by
the public's paws.


>> Further, ALL laws have to originate by a suggestion of the people and
>> then a vote by the people would decide as to whether they pass or
>> not. Suggestions by the people would be collected by a minimum of 3,
>> 3rd party public companies and the most popular suggestions from each
>> would be compared and published publicly for the people to vote on.
>>
>
> But if you do away with special interests, you have to do away with people
> voting.

Special interest groups wold be banned from governmant interaction.


>
> Special interests are the foil to the madness of crowds. Sometimes the
> special interests win, sometimes the mob wins. Most often they cancel each
> other.

Which is a problem in itself, lots of spending and accomplishing nothing.
We need no groups trying to decide what is best for you and me. Needless to
say there would be no need for a "Party System".

J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes these methods reach different conclusions, i.e., abortion.
>> The Church says "never;" Judaism says "sometimes yes, but mostly no;"
>> The non-Catholic tradition generally has no institutional standard on
>> the issue.
>
> Which is all a bunch of bury 'em in BS bafflegab that ignores the
> point, which is that there is little agreement among the major
> religions on what constitutes morality, making the decision an
> arbitrary one by some authority or other (since you are being as
> pedantic as an Asperger's patient about the word "church"). And you
> go on about Judaism, "the Catholic tradition", and "the non-Catholic
> tradition", but you totally ignore the fact that most of the people
> in the world are not Jews or Christians.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to establish a primer on the religions of the world -
I was just offering examples.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> And you go on about Judaism, "the Catholic tradition", and
>> "the non-Catholic tradition", but you totally ignore the fact that most
>> of
>> the people in the world are not Jews or Christians.
>
>
> Religion, the biggest con job on the planet, fed by the unwillingness of
> man to accept death as being final.
>
> Talk about total B/S.
>
> Lew


It is a shame that you have not witnessed a miracle, I think you would
quickly change your mind.

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:40:30 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> HeyBub wrote:

>> Sorry, I wasn't trying to establish a primer on the religions of the
>> world - I was just offering examples.
>
> The trouble is that you selected your examples in such a way as to
> suggest that there is a consensus morality among disparate religions.

There is a consensus. They all agree you should give them money :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Elrond Hubbard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>> Religion, the biggest con job on the planet, fed by the unwillingness
>>> of man to accept death as being final.
>>>
>>> Talk about total B/S.
>
>> It is a shame that you have not witnessed a miracle, I think you would
>> quickly change your mind.
>
> The SawStop demo doesn't count as a miracle, Leon.


LOL, Noo it does not.

Leon wrote:
>
> Those that approach government officials/decision makers directly
> would be illegal.
>
> There is no reason to make direct contact with the government
> Officials/Public Servants. The "legal" special interest groups can
> approach the public to suggest items that may be submitted by the
> people and voted on by the people for popular suggestions to be
> passed into law. And then of course the public will vote to pass or
> fail the new suggested law. Public officials/Public Servants would
> simply implement the new laws created by the people.

The "special interests" are the experts. Would you trust even the most
enlightened legislator to determine the tariff on imported hydrogenated yak
fat?

Just yesterday the House voted on a 1,000 page environmental/tax bill, none
of whom had read it. As bad as that was, they included a 300-page amendment
that starts out: "Page 3, Section 101(b) strike all the words beginning with
'Absalom' thru the first occurance of 'gaggle,' substituting 'Battle of
Agincourt' for the struck-out portion."

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> I will, you have to want to believe before you can see the obvious.
>
>
> Yep, as the old saying goes, "You have to set up the mark before you can
> run the con."
>
> Lew
>
>

There are non believers, that is inevetable. But I have seen proof time
and again in beyond "explain it away" detail and often before the event
happens. Seeing is believing.