New Riding Buddy (heheh)

MattB wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

You're ignoring what I wrote.

You might have missed it in the news today, but some radical Islamic
terrorists were trying to down 10 transatlantic flights.

And you were complaining that this petite blonde and her "evil
website" had you scared.

I was suggesting that you get some perspective on what you should be
concerned about.

It's not really that complicated.

But how are these related again? Yes, plotting to blow up planes is bad.
Doing it is even worse. Shooting doctors or Medieval torture is
similarly bad. I think we can all agree on that. This is some of the
worst that extreme fundamentalism can do, from either end of the spectrum.

And I think it's clear that none of those examples has anything to do
with the mindset of most "fundamentalists" of either religion (though
I'd suggest moreso with one than the other... but that's another
thread).

Do you realize how you sound like your are objectifying her by
continuing to refer to her as a "petite blonde"? I personally don't care
if it's a petite blonde or Andre the Giant. With the power of public
office and an agenda to remove books from libraries or blur the lines
between church and state, their physical presence or gender doesn't
really matter.

I agree I was playing with her size and gender to help drill home my
central point - that it's silly to be "scared" of a single political
voice in a sea of voices - and was using the comparison to the REAL
thread posed by the terrorists as a much better example of something
to worry about (figuratively and literally).

It's the clear intent to undermine the first amendment
and warping of constitutional ideals to keep church and state separate
that concerns me. The justification and individual(s) involved are
secondary.

'Scuse me - perhaps you actually believe that there's anything in the
Constitution that calls for a "separation of church and state". I
suppose this is another case of "repeat a lie long enough and it
becomes truth". I'm curious if you actually know where this (very
non-constitutional) idea even originated (don't bother looking through
any of the "foundation documents" - it's not there).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

BB wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:32:24 GMT, Bill Sornson wrote:

Real men still use V-brakes.

And real OLD men still use cantilever brakes. ;-)

I'm only "half old" - my personal MTB still has a canti on the back
(since that provides better modulation than a V-brake, and more than
enough braking power). In fact, I'd still be running one up front if
I could buy a (good) fork with a canti brake cable stop.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"GeeDubb" wrote:

"Bill Sornson" wrote

She's a funny woman, too. Can you take a joke, or do you (the
collective "Lefty" you) really hate her that much that you'll sieze
jokes out of context to build a false case against her?

You don't /really/ have to ask that question, do you CDB?

yes he does. turning the tables the right would slay a leftist joke sayer
saying the same thing, joke or not.

Gary (somewhere in the middle...not that there's anything wrong with
that.....)

Thing is, when you pick up an Ann Coulter book, you know you're
reading the work of a very talented satirist (kind of a modern-day
Mark Twain in a little black dress). On the other side of the
spectrum, you're expected to accept Michael Moore and Al Franken as
"documentaries".

It would be funny if there weren't so many gullible people out there.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"G.T." wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
"Corvus Corvax" wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote:

Oh, I see - but YOUR "religion" (and it is, BTW) should be the only
one that gets a say, huh? It's all about freedom of speech until
someone says something you disagree with, apparently.

No, Mark. Unlike Brandi, there is no Grand Wazoo in the Sky telling me
to ban books. You do not get to police my reading, or my children's.
Or anybody else's. It is none of your ****ing business.

Still, you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't
want to allow those with other viewpoints the same visibility.
Replace "religion" with "mores" or "beliefs" and it's the same thing.
Pure hypocrisy.

Nice twisting of the issue. We, the rational people, don't want to
impose public policy on private matters. It has nothing to do with
religion, mores, or beliefs.

You don't want to "impose public policy on private matters"??? How
does that equate by not allowing the display of the Ten Commandments
(very much a foundational document for the nation, and the core of all
of western civilization) in a park? Or forcing the inclusion of
sexually explicit and graphic reading material into a public library
where children can get to it (as much an "action" as trying to get it
removed).

And don't think there's any balance here. The Atheist religion
requires 100% compliance with its beliefs when it comes to the public
realm. NO Ten Commandments. No reference to Christmas (or other
religious holidays). No religious icons (errrr, unless they're
standing in a jar of urine, of course).

And pointing up and shouting "Look! A highjacking!" when somebody
criticises the right's loony excesses at home is not working any more.
I, like many people, am capable of thinking about more than one thing
at a time.

You consider monitoring calls to and from known Al Qaeda associates
overseas to be a "loony excess". I consider that opinion loony.

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."

And if you consider talking to a known Al Qaeda associate without fear
of being monitored a "right", I suggest you try to find polititians
who will add that to their campaign platform, get them elected, and
then announce your glorious achievement to the world (and to the
terrorists, who'll be quite relieve their "rights" have been
"restored").

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"Corvus Corvax" wrote:

This will be the last I post on this subject, I think, but I spent a
while on a nice 30-mile spin on the fix this morning doing a little
critical thinking and it would be interesting to put it into electrons.

Mark Hickey wrote:

Still, you ascribe more moral importance to YOUR "religion" and don't
want to allow those with other viewpoints the same visibility.
Replace "religion" with "mores" or "beliefs" and it's the same thing.
Pure hypocrisy.

[...bizarre ranting about Al Quaeda snipped...]

This is what I mean by exploiting the American cultural instinct for
fairness: I have a religious belief system. Therefore any belief system
you have is necessarily religious, and therefore must be held to be on
equal footing with _my_ religious belief system.

I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
compliance).

The problem with this logic is that there is something called
"reality", and there is a systematic way to understand reality:
science. Science is a way of understanding and cataloging facts. A
famously controversial example among fundamentalists might be
evolution: evolution is a fact. It doesn't matter if Jesus or the
Flying Spaghetti Monster or the aliens talking to you through your
fillings tell you otherwise, evolution will continue to be a fact.

Nice that you try to keep a respectful view of others' beliefs there
(NOT). The problem is not what science IS, it's what science ISN'T.
Science isn't supposed to be a political tool, wielded selectively and
partially to support a particular belief system. REAL science would
demand teaching not only the theory (there's that pesky word again) of
evolution, but the PROBLEMS with the theory of evolution (and they are
many). The subject is a fascinating one, and the holes in it
thought-provoking. And FWIW, I don't disagree with any of the actual
science of evolution - we have a clear record of the evolution of the
planet and its life forms (including the inexplainable leaps from one
life form to another without any fossil records). The difference is
that I don't believe it was a random, self-directed process.

A case in point: human papilloma virus (HPV). According to the Centers
for Disease Control, 3,952 women died in the U.S. of cervical cancer
in 2002. Cervical cancer is caused by human papilloma virus. These are
facts. It is also a fact that there is now a vaccine for HPV, which, to
be effective, must be given to women prior to the onset of sexual
activity. That is, you have to vaccinate young girls before they start
having sex. Fundamentalists have used their political muscle to stifle
issuing this vaccine to children the same way one might vaccinate them
against measles or mumps or polio, specifically because it is a vaccine
against a sexually transmitted disease and such a vaccination would
weaken the message of abstinence.

I've never even HEARD of the debate on this subject (and I'm generally
pretty plugged in to what us evil fundamentalists are trying to
accomplish politically). But on the surface it sounds like a very
unlikely scenario (there has to be more to the debate than you've
presented, because the position you've ascribed to the
"fundamentalists" makes no sense at all).

Free speech? Free speech demands that no one group be allowed to
suppress facts -- science -- for religious reasons.

Fantastic! When can we add the FULL facts of the current evolutionary
theory (including the many problems) to our childrens' textbooks?

Citizens of a free,
democratic society have a right to access the truth about the world.

We agree absolutely.

This includes education about sexual biology, evolution, the Big Bang.

I'm all for it (though "sexual biology" should be age-appropriate, and
not devolve into a "how-to course", IMHO). To me, studying the facts
behind evolution and the creation event are fascinating, and contrary
to what you probably believe, reinforces my faith in the presence of
an intelligent creator. When you understand the unimaginable
precision that's necessary to make the universe work (and I'm talking
multiple "coincidences" with precision on the order of one to a number
raised to the 50th power!), you can believe it's a design, or you can
believe it's coincidence (I simply don't have enough faith to believe
the latter).

Scientists have not just the right, but the obligation to make the
facts about these things available to everyone, including your
children. Even if you don't like it.

Unless of course you're of the atheist religion, in which case you'll
fight tooth and nail to EXCLUDE facts about science that don't support
your position, and you'll insist that a controversial theory is
presented as settled fact. But I guess that's OK with you?

And I use brass nipples exclusively.

I'm mixed - I normally build all my own wheels with brass, but when I
get a pre-built wheel it's usually got aluminum nipples. That was a
down side when I lived in Florida and rode through salt spray every
day, but not so much here in the desert (where they'll last virtually
forever).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:

When you understand the unimaginable
precision that's necessary to make the universe work (and I'm talking
multiple "coincidences" with precision on the order of one to a number
raised to the 50th power!), you can believe it's a design, or you can
believe it's coincidence (I simply don't have enough faith to believe
the latter).

I know a little about the subject. Certainly enough to know that you
should try to avoid lecturing people on the topic. You make yourself
look very foolish.

Just a helpful suggestion.

CC

"Mark Hickey" wrote

It would be funny if there weren't so many gullible people out there.

the problem is that both (more than both) sides of this issue feel that the
other side is gullible. Like CB said, how about everybody agree to
disagree.

Nobody is going to convince the other that their view is correct.

Gary

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:57:42 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

Hmmm, you have to wonder why 90% of the time that line is quoted, the
rest of the sentence is left out.

For those interested in the TRUE intent of the passage, here's the
rest:

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Kinda changes things, huh?

Not at all. As I said in the post to which you replied, "she can say what
she wants, but making it into law is a different story." I don't assume to
know the "true intent" of the amendment; I think they intended to write
everything they did.

I have no problem with people posting religious text in their homes or
churches. But when they try to post them in public parks using tax
dollars, that's different. I imagine you only defend it because it happens
to be YOUR religious establishment. Would you be equally supportive of
your tax dollars being used to post Qu'ranic verses in your local park?

What part of the Ten Commandments is "establishing a religion"?

It doesn't say anything about establishing a religion. It says no law
respecting "an establishment of religion". Christianity is an
establishment of religion.

There is a difference between 'the establishment of religion' which is an
action, and 'an establishment of religion' which is something that already
exists. They said the latter.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

GeeDubb wrote:

"Mark Hickey" wrote

It would be funny if there weren't so many gullible people out there.

the problem is that both (more than both) sides of this issue feel that
the other side is gullible.

No, I don't think either side is gullible. I believe rational people
want to keep our society enlightened and free, and I believe the
superstitious people want to take us back to the dark ages of fear and
repression.

Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

"G.T." wrote in message
...
GeeDubb wrote:

"Mark Hickey" wrote

It would be funny if there weren't so many gullible people out there.

the problem is that both (more than both) sides of this issue feel that
the other side is gullible.

No, I don't think either side is gullible. I believe rational people want
to keep our society enlightened and free, and I believe the superstitious
people want to take us back to the dark ages of fear and repression.

Greg

I wasn't directing this at anyone in particular (a generalization) but isn't
that what religion is all about? Suppression of the masses?

and to ask Mark Hickey......since when is atheism considered a religion? I
don't believe in a superior being nor do I believe in any organized religion
(mostly due to the suppression issue and each religion attempts to control
its followers IMO) but I have more morals than probably 99% of all religious
people. Morality is not a religious thing.....especially not a Christian
initiated thing.

and to try and get mtbiking back into this...

I did Trail 100 this morning from the west end to Dreamy Draw. Had to stop
twice to wring out my glove and sweat band. Got to the coffee shop and left
a trail of sweat from the door to the bar...

suffice it to say it was quite humid this morning but the trail was in
superb condition.

Gary