Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 9/4/2025 9:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
On 22/07/2025 17:07, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 17:00:42 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
“Latest Arctic Ice Measurements Are In! — Someone Get Al Gore A Tissueâ€
https://clashdaily.com/2025/07/latest-arctic-ice-measurements-are-in-someone-get-al-gore-a-tissue/
“Before that, Al Gore had confidently predicted that the sea ice would
be gone in just a few years, both in his ‘documentary’ (the one that
lost some court battles concerning its claims) and his ‘Day After >>>>>>> Tomorrow’ cataclysm movie where the polar ice slid into the ocean,
causing New York to freeze over.â€
<snippo nonsense others have addressed>
/The Day After Tomorrow/ came out two years before /An Inconvient
Truth/. Gore appears to have had nothing to do with the former.
And /The Day After Tomorrow/ contains no "polar ice slid[ing] into the >>>>>> ocean". New York -- indeed the Northern half of the USA -- does indeed >>>>>> freeze over, however.
So here's the question: here we have a site that cannot even get its >>>>>> movies right. Why should we trust them to get anything else right? >>>>>> ("right" here meaning "correct", BTW)
North polar ice was, and, what remains, is in
the ocean already. If the ice on Greenland and
on Antarctica (and at the south pole) slips into
thevsea more than it already has, then New York City
may get quite wet. Which can happen already on a
windy day. Ice is less likely.
I don't see a reason to argue that the rest of what
Lynn quoted is anything other than nonsensical lies.
Lynn makes his living from fossil fuels. It's not in his
best interest to care about the rest of the planet, so long
has his customers can extract more money from the
exploitation of a fundamentally limited resource.
He's about to reach 65, one might think he'd be concerned
about the world he is leaving to his child, but since
he owns his business, it's likely he'll continue to
ignore science and continue parroting nonsense from
right-wing garbage sites.
I've been 65 for quite a while now. And I have more than one child.
And you keep on listening to the crazies like Mann
See, you can't refute the facts and resort to Ad Homenim. You
don't get to define "crazy".
and the rest of them
Like the IPCC? Like our own Dr. Hyde?
While I know who Mann is, he's one of thousands of
scientists who actually understand the atmospheric
behavior of carbon dioxide vis-a-vis emitted IR.
Spencer and Christy, however, are only two.
"Perhaps the darlings of the denialist community are
two researchers out of Alabama (John Christy and Roy
Spencer). They rose to public attention in the mid-1990s
when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not
warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had
made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers
identified those errors, the new results showed a warming."
Even Christy could not deny the surface warning. His satellite
measurements, however, did show that the mid and upper troposphere were
not warming, or at least not warming as much as predicted. This caused
quite a stir, and a book was published on the topic which considered
every single possibility except that the measurements were incorrect.
A big deal was made of Christy's work here in this group. I pointed
out, among other things, that satellite "measurements" of tropospheric >temperature were actually models themselves, models of the modification
of long wave radiation as it passes through the atmosphere. So the issue >wasn't quite the "data vs model" argument it seemed to be. There were
error bars on the satellite results. Little did I know that the word
"bar" was superfluous.
The upper atmosphere was never expected to warm as much as the lower,
and the stratosphere, it has long, long, been known, was expected to
cool. I suspected that the relative upper atmosphere cooling had been >underestimated in climate models, not all that incredible a possibility, >though disturbing.
I never for a second imagined that Christy and his co-workers could be
so incompetent as to allow the stratospheric cooling signal to be mixed
in to a significant degree with their tropospheric measurements. Yet
that is what happened.
I was present when this was revealed. A seminar by one of Christy's
people at Texas A&M had me uneasy about their inversion algorithm, but a >mature grad student - far more knowledgeable than I in the area of
remote sensing - stood up and tore the work apart. The speaker had
nothing to say in rebuttal.
And this wasn't their first such error, it was their third. The first
two were small, but all contributed to give erroneously cool
measurements. I find it difficult to regard this a coincidence.
Scott Lurndal wrote:<snip Christy/Spencer discussion>
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:
And this wasn't their first such error, it was their third. The first
two were small, but all contributed to give erroneously cool
measurements. I find it difficult to regard this a coincidence.
We can be somewhat molified that Christy and Spencer (and Koonin,
Curry and McKitrick (an economist) as well) have been fired! Talk about the
five stooges, indeed.
Fired? Aren't some of these tenured?
I have McKitrick relatives, but I am pleased to say that they're not
related to that guy.
One of the funniest episodes in the GW debates occurred when M and Essex
(who should know better, being a very bright guy) attempted to draw >conclusions from a temperature data set without first looking at it.
All climate data sets will have entries where no observation was
possible. If nothing is done about this most read statements will take
this value as zero. I've spent hours dealing with this problem in
various data sets, but apparently M&E were above this, and so their
results were corrupted as their data set was read with many, many false >zeros.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
All climate data sets will have entries where no observation was
possible. If nothing is done about this most read statements will take
this value as zero. I've spent hours dealing with this problem in
various data sets, but apparently M&E were above this, and so their
results were corrupted as their data set was read with many, many false >zeros.
Of course they're not alone in this. It seems to be a right-wing habit.
Somebody and Rogoff, for example, wrote a paper justifying the
laughable laffer curve based on just such an error (I only recall Rogoff >because he was that rare thing in those days, an American grandmaster of >chess, before deciding to waste his life as an economist).
On 9/12/2025 12:09 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
But it was close to too late. If I had to do it with what the Big Ugly
Bill is doing to health insurance I wouldn't have been able to and would
be completely blind now.
Paying for medical health is a total nightmare in the USA. I have no
idea how to fix this. Even Medicare For All will be a disaster in my >opinion as that will be a Single Payer system. For me, I love being on >Medicare but my Part B, part D, and Part G are costing me $350 per
month. My wife is the same. A bargain compared to my $1,200/month that
I was paying for Obamacare. I do pay $550 per month to Obamacare for
our disabled 37 year old daughter who lives with my wife and I.
But Obamacare said that the cataract was not bad enough
to fix so I had to wait for Medicare, even though I cannot read one inch >tall text just three feet away with my glasses.
I consider myself blessed by God. My eyes are failing me so I will be >having cataract surgery in a couple of weeks. I feel that God has
blessed the USA so much that we have surgeons and hospitals that can
help us out.
I am not well off so I have to wait until nearly the end of November
for my cataract evaluation. I hope that it will be operable as something is >obscuring my vision which leds to frequent un-noticed typos and I have
to look over each post carefully to make sure I have not inadvertantly
typed "fruit for "free". I use this example because in a SF book the error >was made and went to final publication so that the free men became fruit
men.
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 02:06:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo ACA whining, and some medical details (no whining there!)>
But Obamacare said that the cataract was not bad enough=20
to fix so I had to wait for Medicare, even though I cannot read one inch= >=20
tall text just three feet away with my glasses.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 02:06:30 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo ACA whining, and some medical details (no whining there!)>
But Obamacare said that the cataract was not bad enough=20
to fix so I had to wait for Medicare, even though I cannot read one inch= >>=20
tall text just three feet away with my glasses.
The obvious fallacy here in Lynn's rant is that the ACA
did not actually tell him anything[*]. A medical
professional should have made the determination,
but it was more likely the private insurance company
from which he purchased his ACA compliant policy decided to deny
his claim.
And as a free-market, anti-goverment, business owner
Lynn could certainly have paid for it himself if he felt it were
necessary rather waiting for medicare.
[*] The term of art in the ACA is "medically necessary".
"Coverage requires that the cataracts significantly
interfere with daily activities, not just refractive errors."
Clearly there is some interpretive leeway in defining
"significantly interfere with daily activities" by the
insurance company that denied his claim.
Which can be laid at the feet of the congresscritter that
(or staffer) which wrote the ACA language.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
Paying for medical health is a total nightmare in the USA. I have no
idea how to fix this. Even Medicare For All will be a disaster in my
opinion as that will be a Single Payer system.
Why would you think a single payer system would be a disaster?
If medical professionals were saleried generously, rather than compensated >> per procedure, costs would go down considerably.
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 09:05:29 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
When I first got cataracts, I took a toilet-paper tube, cut it intoAs mentioned previously, I've had cataract surgery within the last
two pieces, cut each open, affixed Scotch tape to one (keeping the
other as a spare) and used it to restrict my vision to the eye that
still worked. Note that I wear glasses, so this was quite practical.
I mention this because, if you wear glasses, this or something similar >>might be helpful. Just be careful: with only one eye, you may have
problems with depth perception and other issues.
month. I stayed home for the first 3 weeks, after that I made a short
car trip, the second time I noticed I was having difficulties at
twilight so slowed WAY down and made sure I got home safely.
(Fortunately there was little traffic at the time)
On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 18:14:05 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I consider myself blessed by God. My eyes are failing me so I will be >>>having cataract surgery in a couple of weeks. I feel that God has >>>blessed the USA so much that we have surgeons and hospitals that can >>>help us out.
I can accept this, but it would make me wonder why God has blessed Japan
so much more than the USA in that regard.
--scott
Hmmm. I had cataract surgery 3 weeks ago. Does that "prove" Canada is
equally blessed by God? Uh...
On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 21:12:29 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 18:14:05 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I consider myself blessed by God. My eyes are failing me so I will be >>>>having cataract surgery in a couple of weeks. I feel that God has >>>>blessed the USA so much that we have surgeons and hospitals that can >>>>help us out.
I can accept this, but it would make me wonder why God has blessed Japan >>>so much more than the USA in that regard.
--scott
Hmmm. I had cataract surgery 3 weeks ago. Does that "prove" Canada is >>equally blessed by God? Uh...
At the moment, perhaps, even more so, if that were possible.
We, after all, have Trump; Canada does not.
On 9/14/25 08:17, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 21:12:29 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
Hmmm. I had cataract surgery 3 weeks ago. Does that "prove" Canada is
equally blessed by God? Uh...
At the moment, perhaps, even more so, if that were possible.
We, after all, have Trump; Canada does not.
Nothing to do with G*d but with our racist hatred built up since the
Civil War and spread all over the nation by immigrants from the South
to the Northern States though we had our own racists in the North
who passed laws which, while not the equivalenty of the Black Codes,
deprived Americans with black skin from owning property. It happened in
New York State and in California that black-owned property was
alienated by state and local action. In California some of that property
was returned recently but it was to have been the core of a families
wealth while on return it became a Public Park.
The haters of black Americans elected Trump as wll as the naive
voters who believed the Liar In Chief on economic lies.
On 16/09/25 03:36, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2025 09:05:04 -0700, Bobbie Sellerssnip
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
snipdeprived Americans with black skin from owning property. It happened in >>> New York State and in California that black-owned property was
alienated by state and local action. In California some of that property >>> was returned recently but it was to have been the core of a families
wealth while on return it became a Public Park.
A fair number of communities in the area still feature property deeds
with restrictive covenants on them. For all I know, mine is one of
them (I don't have a copy of the actual deed). These are now
unenforceable, but efforts to remove them are (or were at last report)
having a hard time because the tradition for property titles is that
/everything/ stays in forever, to ensure that there is only /one/
version of each deed.
I am not from America and even though I am aware of much of the history
of racism in the USA, I had never heard of property ownership being
dependent on skin colour and amazed at the possibility it can still
exist as your comment regarding covenants implies. Fascinating. I will
do a web search for more general (rather than legal) details.
On 9/16/25 11:02, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 17:12:36 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 16/09/25 03:36, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2025 09:05:04 -0700, Bobbie Sellerssnip
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
snipdeprived Americans with black skin from owning property. It happened in >>>>> New York State and in California that black-owned property was
alienated by state and local action. In California some of that property >>>>> was returned recently but it was to have been the core of a families >>>>> wealth while on return it became a Public Park.
A fair number of communities in the area still feature property deeds
with restrictive covenants on them. For all I know, mine is one of
them (I don't have a copy of the actual deed). These are now
unenforceable, but efforts to remove them are (or were at last report) >>>> having a hard time because the tradition for property titles is that
/everything/ stays in forever, to ensure that there is only /one/
version of each deed.
I am not from America and even though I am aware of much of the history
of racism in the USA, I had never heard of property ownership being
dependent on skin colour and amazed at the possibility it can still
exist as your comment regarding covenants implies. Fascinating. I will
do a web search for more general (rather than legal) details.
There are also communities (and, IIRC, at least one State)
/explicitly/ founded as for White people only. This nonsense is, of
course, now illegal as well.
That was because they did not want slaves brought in to that state.
As usual it was white workmen who feared wages being undercut by slave >labor.
There was also simple-minded racism involved. But free states did not >suffer
from the fear as was common in the South of slave rebellions.
After abolition there were towns and cities where black people founded
the municipality. We had at least one in the Central Valley of
California but
after the automobile was widespread black people with ambitions for a better >life moved away from the South to find that prejudiced white people had >gotten there first to present new problems. Those white people included
some of my Dad's relatives which is why i don't have anything to do with
that side of my family. All of his brothers and sisters are dead by
this time
in any event.
A lot of things are better it seems for black folks now but the
police still seem to think that dark skin is a reason for investigation
of people going about their daily activities.
I regret to say that my area in particular is less accepting of gays
than it was forty years ago. We've had a serious influx of devout
people from several religions which are not terribly enlightened on this >matter. Or other matters. Sermons against evolution are not uncommon >hereabouts, mostly in Christian churches, but not entirely.
Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 16:32:32 -0400, William HydeThere are Islamic creationists, and even Hindu creationists, though they
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo>
I regret to say that my area in particular is less accepting of gays
than it was forty years ago. We've had a serious influx of devout
people from several religions which are not terribly enlightened on this >>> matter. Or other matters. Sermons against evolution are not uncommon
hereabouts, mostly in Christian churches, but not entirely.
That's a tough nut to crack. Religious opinions tend to have a strong
emotional content, so attacking the opinion and attacking the
opinion-holder tend to be seen as the same thing. I sometimes
fantasize that an effective argument exists, but it appears to me that
\the real problems are much deeper. From my perspective, a large
percentage of what we now call "Evangelical" groups have wandered far
from the narrow path that leads upward.
Your last sentence could be read as implying that sermons against
evolution can be found in non-Christian churches (eg, Muslims, Jews,
Buddhists, etc -- except, of course, that they would not like to be
called "churches"), which makes no real sense to me.
do not agree with their Christian counterparts on what creation actually >means. Obviously there are no young-earth Hindu creationists.
But they're all quite, quite clear on the special independent creation
of man, with no links to those nasty, nasty, apes.
Long ago a comic SF story postulated that we had actually evolved from
pigs rather than apes. Imagine the furor that would cause, if true.
(YASID, anyone?).
There are Islamic creationists, and even Hindu creationists, though they
do not agree with their Christian counterparts on what creation actually >means. Obviously there are no young-earth Hindu creationists.
AntiFa is whatever it is but a lot of it is Anti-Fascism i.e. ProDemocracy
and against the authoritorian imbecile and his peers who have been trying
to turn the nation into a Plutocrarcy with the usual fascist traits.
Trump is
old and aging very quickly so we know he is only human and has a limited
life span left. He may die before I do and I am 10 years older than him.
But both political parties are in the hands of the plutocrats aka oligarchs
who want to be protected from taxation and confiscation of their wealth from >underpaid workers. Abe Lincoln said that all capitial is derived from >labor.
So until they cut the workers in for a fair share of the profits there
will be
discontent. Hell even after that there will still be discontent because >there
will not be enough room in the marinas or space at the golf courses.
On 9/17/25 13:19, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 16:32:32 -0400, William HydeThere are Islamic creationists, and even Hindu creationists, though they
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo>
I regret to say that my area in particular is less accepting of gays
than it was forty years ago. We've had a serious influx of devout
people from several religions which are not terribly enlightened on this >>>> matter. Or other matters. Sermons against evolution are not uncommon >>>> hereabouts, mostly in Christian churches, but not entirely.
That's a tough nut to crack. Religious opinions tend to have a strong
emotional content, so attacking the opinion and attacking the
opinion-holder tend to be seen as the same thing. I sometimes
fantasize that an effective argument exists, but it appears to me that
\the real problems are much deeper. From my perspective, a large
percentage of what we now call "Evangelical" groups have wandered far
from the narrow path that leads upward.
Your last sentence could be read as implying that sermons against
evolution can be found in non-Christian churches (eg, Muslims, Jews,
Buddhists, etc -- except, of course, that they would not like to be
called "churches"), which makes no real sense to me.
do not agree with their Christian counterparts on what creation actually
means. Obviously there are no young-earth Hindu creationists.
Hindus & Buddhists have temples, Jews have Synagogues. schules,
some museums and community centers, Muslims have mosques and schools, >Shintoist have shrines as do other animistic religions, Catholics,
Orthodox,
Epicopalians and Anglicans have not only churches but Cathedrals.
Edifice comples satisfied i guess.
And that is what Antifa does -- it looks like Anarchism, acts like
Anarchism, and sounds like Anarchism. Anarchism as we have known it in
the PNW (Seattle and Portland, the latter drawing on Vancouver WA as
well): they hide inside legitimate demonstrations, they insist that
breaking department store windows is somehow serving their ends, they
come up with incoherent justifications for what they do.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
And that is what Antifa does -- it looks like Anarchism, acts like >>Anarchism, and sounds like Anarchism. Anarchism as we have known it in
the PNW (Seattle and Portland, the latter drawing on Vancouver WA as
well): they hide inside legitimate demonstrations, they insist that >>breaking department store windows is somehow serving their ends, they
come up with incoherent justifications for what they do.
The problem with Antifa is that, contrary to the claims of the right, it is >not actually a thing. There is no actual organization. It's like being a >"Christian." Anyone call call themselves Christian no matter what they >believe in. So there are many mutually contradictory viewpoints all under >the same name.
It does strike me that the people who are currently in favor of dismantling >the government are on the right. This is strange, since for most of my >lifetime they have been on the left. It is very confusing.
On 9/18/25 08:12, Paul S Person wrote:
The demonstrators who put a guillotine outside an ICE office in
California were, I am sorry to say, quite possibly pointing the way to
the solution.
Oh that produced great societal stablitity in la belle France in the Terror
did it not? Led straight to Napoleon, then sucessive govenments of
several sorts
including returns to Empire and to Monarchy then back to successive >republics.
And that brings us to the time of Trump who is trying to eliminate all
criticism of his attempt to rule as executive free of Congressional control.
On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 08:12:36 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
-- the Italian Police, at the height of the BLM demos, arrested some >>persons for having black underwear -- apparently, they had heard that
the Anarchists (rebranded Antifa) dressed in black when breaking store >>windows but missed the fact that it was the outer clothing that was
black, not necessarily the underwear
I own several pairs of black underwear - I never for a moment thought >clothing that nobody but me ever saw was making a statement...
Paul S Person wrote:
Thanks for confirming that "other churches" has no meaning when
applied to other religions and, indeed, may be insulting.
I see that I missed the point of your objection. "Christian Church could
be considered redundant. I should have said simply "in churches".
But there are non-christian churches. Unitarian Universalist and >Scientologist, for example. In the past some trinitarian Christians have >claimed that even old line Unitarians are not Christians, in particular
the branch that denies any divine status to "The man, Christ".
--I'm not sure how Cathedrals fit in here. IIRC, a church was originally
called a "cathederal" because it contained the "kathedra" (chair -- a
literal, physical chair) of a bishop. So your list of denominations
that have cathedrals makes sense, as they also have bishops, as (IIRC)
do Lutherans in Scandinavia (where the bishops converted and so the
cathedral became a Lutheran one).
I think that is right. Cathedrals do not have to be impressive
buildings, though. The first Anglican cathedral in Canada's arctic >archipelago was basically a small wooden building, I am told, though i
have no photograph. This is the new Cathedral:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Jude's_Cathedral_%28Iqaluit%29#/media/File:Iqaluit_St._Jude's_Anglican_Cathedral_2012.JPG
A Syrian acquaintance assured me that there is an Anglican Cathedral in >Aleppo. I have been unable to find a reference to it, and if it ever >existed it seems to be gone. But one Anglican church does remain, it's >congregation being partially south Sudanese.
My Syrian friend assured me that there were fifteen cathedrals in and
around Aleppo at the time. Not all were impressive structures.
Some other denominations have Bishops as well as seen in
the San Francisco Bay Area where bishops may lead their own
evangelical charismatic churches. Even in Southern California we
have the Crystal Cathedral which I have heard of but never
seen which is another protestant church, perhaps a church of
the Prosperity Gospel variety.
And Anarchists are known for organization.
Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 18:33:46 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo>
Thanks for confirming that "other churches" has no meaning when
applied to other religions and, indeed, may be insulting.
I see that I missed the point of your objection. "Christian Church could >>> be considered redundant. I should have said simply "in churches".
But there are non-christian churches. Unitarian Universalist and
Scientologist, for example. In the past some trinitarian Christians have >>> claimed that even old line Unitarians are not Christians, in particular
the branch that denies any divine status to "The man, Christ".
One of the interesting aspects of Christianity is that there are
Christians who are orthodox (small "o") and Christians who are
heretical.
The the Arians were Christians. Heretical Christians,
As the Arian doctrine is certainly older than the Orthodox, the
declaration of who is heretical simply depends on who has the support of
the secular state.
"This year the Christmas decorations will be put up by the Wiccan group".
Much as I admire the sentiment, I'm not sure that would pass muster with
the inquisition.
Newton and Spinoza, after all, were heretics.
On 17/09/2025 16:39, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 16:32:32 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo>
I regret to say that my area in particular is less accepting of gays
than it was forty years ago. We've had a serious influx of devout
people from several religions which are not terribly enlightened on this >>> matter. Or other matters. Sermons against evolution are not uncommon
hereabouts, mostly in Christian churches, but not entirely.
That's a tough nut to crack. Religious opinions tend to have a strong
emotional content, so attacking the opinion and attacking the
opinion-holder tend to be seen as the same thing. I sometimes
fantasize that an effective argument exists, but it appears to me that
\the real problems are much deeper. From my perspective, a large
percentage of what we now call "Evangelical" groups have wandered far
from the narrow path that leads upward.
Not that people aren't already working on the
religious prejudice problem, but I suppose that
offering a catalogue which shows that the other,
erroneous religions mostly have just the same
set of prejudices that yours has, may influence
a believer. Including ones that the believer may
disagree with, such as about children or about
menstruating women.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:24:04 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
And Anarchists are known for organization.
That should, of course, be "not known".
I am beginning to feel more empathy for Gerrold, who appears to drop
one or more words from sentences in each novel I read. More or less.
Of course, I do not enjoy the benefits of a proofreader.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 18:57:37 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 18:33:46 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo>
Thanks for confirming that "other churches" has no meaning when
applied to other religions and, indeed, may be insulting.
I see that I missed the point of your objection. "Christian Church could >>>> be considered redundant. I should have said simply "in churches".
But there are non-christian churches. Unitarian Universalist and
Scientologist, for example. In the past some trinitarian Christians have >>>> claimed that even old line Unitarians are not Christians, in particular >>>> the branch that denies any divine status to "The man, Christ".
One of the interesting aspects of Christianity is that there are
Christians who are orthodox (small "o") and Christians who are
heretical.
The the Arians were Christians. Heretical Christians,
As the Arian doctrine is certainly older than the Orthodox, the
declaration of who is heretical simply depends on who has the support of >>the secular state.
Not to imply anything here, but the /last/ person who made that point
to a post I had made turned out to belong to a group that is decidedly >heterodox, regarding the Nicene Creed as imposed from above and
impervious to the minor detail that Jesus himself is addressed as
"Lord" (which, in Judaism, is the same as "God") and claims God as his >Father. Not to mention Paul's distinction between Jesus, God's
physical heir, and the rest of us, heirs by adoption.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 190:32:44 |
| Calls: | 178 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 79,927 |