com_dotnet

[Jim Carlock]

phpinfo() has a "com_dotnet" section.

It's kind of odd.

Here it says...

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

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

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

ordinal hint RVA name

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:hJ******************************@comcast.com. ..

Shelly wrote:

>You can practice your religion on any PRIVATE property that allows you to
do so and you can make any statement you wish in a public place
concerning religion -- just not at PUBLICLY paid for events. Those are
paid for by people like ME who do not practice YOUR religion.

And my money went for paying for that event, just as yours did. Which
gives me rights, also. I should be able to make that statement; you
should be able to choose whether you want to listen or not.

You keep thinking that YOUR rights are all-important. You forget that I
have rights, also.

One definition of a democracy is that my rights end where yours begin and
vice-versa. By putting it on public land you are infringing upon my rights.
You don't have unlimited rights. You have the right of free speech, but you
can't yell fire in a crowded theater (unless there is one).

You can put it on any private land you choose (with permission, of course),
but not on public land. That steps over the line. If you insist that you
should have to right to infringe upon mine, then I will equally insist upon
the reverse. I can then formulate a "religion" and get it recognized. I'll
call it anti-Christianism. I will then want to put up a big display on
public property saying "Jesus? Why worship that bastard?". (Before you fly
off the handle, look up the dictionary meaning of the word bastard. It
means a child born out of wedlock.)
Quid Pro Quo.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Turnabout is fair play.
Do want a few more?

The simplest, fairest and least combative way is to simply not allow ANY
religious display on public property.

Now Jerry, answer the question below that I asked you before.

>Here is one for you to ponder. Suppose I held YOUR position and want the
state to sponsor MY religion with YOUR tax dollars on PUBLIC property
and, suppose further, that MY religion was Satanism (it isn't, but lets
say yes just for the sake of argument). How would you feel about that
one? What right have you to stop me from teaching Satanism in schools?
(Remember, I am using YOUR arguments against you). Rememer, too, that
Satanism is a religion. It is devil worship.

Shelly

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:hJ******************************@comcast.com. ..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>>>>
I don't worship.
No, you don't worship a god.

No, I don't worship. Period.

Which means you don't worship a god. Or anything else for that matter.

By George 'es got it. I think 'es got it.

Shelly

[Herb]

hey, Stevo, prove you're not a hypocrite. Point to one post you've
made on usenet ever, where you criticize Muslims or Jews in the same
way that you criticize Christians.

Show us one post where you object to NYC establishng a Muslim school,
for instance.

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message

And you have yet to tell me what's so wrong about a non-denominational
prayer that people can chose to participate in or not participate in.

Here is what is so wrong with it. A child is extremely vulnerable to peer
pressure. A child does not want to be the "oddball". By having elementary
school children "opting out", you are singling them out for ridicule.
Jerry, that is downright cruel. Didn't you even read about the experience
of another poster growing up Jewish in Texas, Should we foster that kind of
cruelty? THAT is what is wrong with it.

I never said it was mandatory. In fact, I specifically said participation
should be optional.

See above.

As for my children being exposed to an Islamic prayer - I'd say great.
They should be exposed to different cultures and religions.

Satanism too? Wiccan? "The Greatness of Nudity"?

You don't have any idea what a non-denominational prayer is, do you? It's
one which isn't Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other specific religion.
It's one which allows participants to deal with God as they believe.

Exactly his point. Why should he be forced to "deal with God"?

Shelly

[Herb]

On Sep 19, 7:47 pm, "Shelly" <[e-mail]:

"Jerry Stuckle" <[e-mail] in message

news:hJ******************************@comcast.com. ..

Shelly wrote:

You can practice your religion on any PRIVATE property that allows you to
do so and you can make any statement you wish in a public place
concerning religion -- just not at PUBLICLY paid for events. Those are
paid for by people like ME who do not practice YOUR religion.

so you object to the US funding Israel, do you?

btw, were you a big fan of Maplethorpe?

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:O7******************************@comcast.com. ..

Sounds like it could have been an excellent opportunity to educate them on
how much Judaism and Christianity have in common.

Define "Christianity". For that matter, define "Judaism".

With Chritianity, there are two several major divisions. The biggest is
between Catholic and Protestant. Within Protestant there is a whole
spectrum from the most loosy-goosy to the fundaentalist. Within Judaism
there is also a spectrum from very loose to ultra-Orthodox. What do you
mean "have in commom".

Basically, there is a fundamental divide between the two. One believes in
the divinity of Jesus. In the other he is not only irrelevent, he is not
even mentioned once. Furthermore, there is an even bigger theological
divide. In Christianity it is what you BELIEVE that counts. In Judaism it
is what you DO that counts. About the only commonality other that the
societal mores that denote a civilized society is that Christianity took the
Jewish bible and added to it with another book. There is very little "in
common" between the two(three) religions.

Shelly

[Shelly]

"Herb" <he****@mail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...

On Sep 14, 11:27 pm, Sanders Kaufman <[e-mail]:

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

I doff my Yamulkah to ya on that one.

Sheesh!

why do you have such bigotry against white Christians, Sanders? Do you
have some neurotic emotional problems?

Read again what he wrote. He said "Ultra-right wing, White Militant
Christians", not "white Christians".

Shelly

[Shelly]

"Herb" <he****@mail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...

On Sep 19, 7:47 pm, "Shelly" <[e-mail]:

>"Jerry Stuckle" <[e-mail] in message

news:hJ******************************@comcast.com ...

Shelly wrote:
You can practice your religion on any PRIVATE property that allows you
to
do so and you can make any statement you wish in a public place
concerning religion -- just not at PUBLICLY paid for events. Those
are
paid for by people like ME who do not practice YOUR religion.

so you object to the US funding Israel, do you?

Israel is a country, not a religion. I have no problem with the US helping
any of our allies. I have no problem with helping Israel (mostly Jews),
France (a half century ago and mostly Catholic), Japan (same time frame and
mostly Buddhist), India (mostly Hindu), etc., etc. so long as they are
allies. Are you saying that Israel is not our ally?

btw, were you a big fan of Maplethorpe?

I had to look up who Maplethorpe is. The photographs I saw on the net are
very artistic. Do you have a problem with the beauty of the human body?

Shelly

[The Natural Philosopher]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>>Not at all. If there is no god, my religion is neither helping or
hurting me. However, if there is a god, you have no chance of being
right because you never entered the lottery. OTOH, I could have
picked the "correct" religion.

"If there is no parachute..my belief in one is neither helping me
or...ARRRGGHH!! SHIT!"

Told you not to trust anything without testing it first, Jerry.

That is absolutely true. If there is no parachute, my belief doesn't in
one doesn't matter, does it?

It does if you try to use it.

[Herb]

Steve, you argue against the existence of God, yet you show the same
relentless zeal in trying to convince others of your point of view.

I personally *was* a Christian, but never saw any inkling of any
prayer being answered. There is no evidence of a good and kindly God.
But there is evidence of a malicious God, as shown by the existence of
hate groups like the ACLU. Hehe

The "rebel against authority" amoral sickness of the ACLU has reached
its nadir in its self-apointed role as the lobby for child molesters -
busily going from state to state to try and knock down all Megan's
Laws.

Yet you people here are using all the old tired, trite arguments of
the ACLU to this day, as if they mean something. Does it not worry you
that you share the same thought patterns as resentment-filled college
boys? Doesn't that signal an internal alarm bell for you?

[Herb]

On Sep 19, 9:14 pm, "Shelly" <[e-mail]:

"Herb" <[e-mail] in message

>
Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
Jewish homeland. So?

oh sure, indigenious Palestinians who lived there for untold
generations have equal rights (and voting privileges) to any Jew who
flies in from Chicago. Haha

EVERY nation will follow its self-interest first.

Wrong. The US endangered itself by pursuing the interests of Israel.
That's mainly why Arabs hate us.

>So does England and
Canada. Does that make England and Canada not our allies? Your logic is
so faulty it is not worth pursuing this argument.

quack quack quack

I've had enough of talking to you. Jerry may be looking through blinders,
but at least he is not a bigot.

there you go, the reflex pseudo-argument of the reverse bigot.

I won't answer another one of your posts no
matter what garbage you put there.

okay, bye immature weenie. You will be more comfortable where your own
prejudices are accepted as if they were fact - like on CNN

[Sanders Kaufman]

Herb wrote:

On Sep 19, 9:14 pm, "Shelly" <[e-mail]:

>"Herb" <[e-mail] in message

>Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
Jewish homeland. So?

oh sure, indigenious Palestinians who lived there for untold
generations have equal rights (and voting privileges) to any Jew who
flies in from Chicago. Haha

As an American jew who would like to see the current nation of Israel
wiped from the map, I can tell you that the urban legends you're
repeating here are simply not true.

But in fact, most Jews don't qualify for that program. It's limited to
certain blood-lines. Everyone else has to apply for citizenship through
the regular bureaucratic process.

And your belief that Muslims aren't part of the voting population,
relegated to the refugee camps - that's not true either.

In fact, Muslims live in peace with their Jewish neighbors all
throughout Israel, and even serve in the Israeli government.

Now, please excuse me while I go wash my mouth out with soap for
defending Israel.

[Steve]

"Herb" <he****@mail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...

hey, Stevo, prove you're not a hypocrite. Point to one post you've
made on usenet ever, where you criticize Muslims or Jews in the same
way that you criticize Christians.

Show us one post where you object to NYC establishng a Muslim school,
for instance.

hmmmm. since i've never actually had dialog in usenet with a muslim, i can't
really say your point is well suited to be taken. i really should at least
have had the opportunity to show that i am a hypocrite, right? we are after
all, in this country, innocent until proven guilty? right? are you
predicting future behavior and settling judgement preemptively? why does
that sound like a familiar practice?

ok, i'm ready. give me a muslim who is willing to discuss his religion.
wait...no need. since i have already prepared myself for such a dialog with
christian, judeistic, islamic, mormon, hindu, budhist, and wiccan religious
dogma, several things can be infered.

1) i take the subject of religion seriously
2) i have taken time to *fully* understand the tenents of those listed
3) i am prepared to discuss this topic at any breadth or depth with anyone
4) am not, nor have not, singled out any single religion - especially out of
some vent i may...as you presume.

be assured, if the muslim school in new york city is being pay with public
funds, i'll certainly be up in arms about it. you shouldn't be surprised
though, that this is the first i've heard of it. i keep quite busy
contracting and haven't read the paper or watched the telly in about a
month. again, that would negate my opportunity to engage in hypocrocy.

when you actually get a point to make rather than a reaction to give,
herb...post something valid that we can whittle away with. let me just say,
we won't be getting on well or for very long if the rest of your replies
being with ad-homonyms - and uninformed, assumptive ones at that.

cheers.

[Steve]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:hJ******************************@comcast.com. ..

Steve wrote:

>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:WP******************************@comcast.com ...

>>The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

And BTW - atheism is a religion, also.
Only to religious people.

And Websters...

i have an old copy of websters that is nothing like their current
definition. plus, every dictionary has a different definition of atheism.
it just means no one really understands what it is...except atheists. we
don't mind. we're only about 2% of the world's population. even so, that
doesn't make your snappy come-back, very snappy.

;^)

Gee, word meanings change. Maybe you should get a copy which has been
published this century. Or at least last century.

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

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

Not at all. I can conceive of those people. But, unlike them, I don't
try to force them to practice my religion - but they want to prohibit me
from practicing it.

wow. now would be the time for you to say what happened to you
*specifically* so we don't just discard such a statement as a generalized
blurt that is unfounded and meaningless.

you still haven't said how you reconsile your apparent aversion to
fulfilling the great commission. you may not actively tie us down, but
you're certainly supposed to tell us "the good news". btw, there is more
religious proliferation in public forums than atheists standing outside
your church's doors blocking your entrance on sunday morning. just who is
forcing whom?

Those who won't let me pray on school grounds, for instance. A perfect
example - when I lived in Raleigh (NC), our church had a fire (old
wiring). For a while we rented a junior high gymnasium for our Sunday
services while the church was being renovated. Then an atheist group
threatened to sue the country Board of Education for allowing a religious
group to meet on school property.

This was a publicly owned building, and open to any other group willing to
pay the same rent we did. But even though we were members of the public
and payed the taxes to build the building, we were barred from using it
during non-school hours, when no one else was around, because we were
holding a religious function.

jerry, my church meets in an elementary school. and while i see no problems
with that argument (especially because you'd actually be paying rent thereby
allowing my taxes to work somewhere else) if equal access is afforded. it is
quite a different proposal than most situations...in that the main themes
are seperation and equal access. this instead of seperation and endorsement.
everyone who comes to church in such a situation is doing so of their own
volition.

much different is the actual endorsement of religion given the genre of
examples we've given you. all of that said though, i likewise understand the
reaction that was received. i'd be more lax about it, but i can see fighting
for the principle of the matter. that's a worthy cause. not only that, i'd
rather have an over-reaction by *any* group of protesters since it would
reinforce the walls of seperation rather than letting gray areas creep into
the mix. remember, its a slippery slope.

>>>>But many atheists are trying to force their religion on the rest of
the country.
>
They can't. Atheism by definition is the absence of religion.

Wrong, again.

again...

a latin: without
theism latin: belief in god

i know you don't care about word origins, lexicons, or etymology in
general (your s.a.t scores must have s.u.c.k.e.d), however when there is
a dispute as the the modern interpretation of a word, the latin or greek
roots are the foundation of any definition. the one above is the simple
raw data. you can certainly appreciate at least that, being a programmer.

Nope. Word origins don't mean anything other than where the words came
from. Current usage is what counts.

you missed the point again. however at this point, i can predict how many
threads it would take for me to bring it home to you, given this thread's
history...and i'll tell you now...it just aint worth it. ;^)

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

No, you don't worship a god.

no, you don't know him well enough to say that. you must take him at his
word that he doesn't worship...anything. you keep acting like you are on
familiar terms with everyone. that's rather arrogant.

I was just more specific about it. If he doesn't worship anything, then
the logical conclusion is that he doesn't worship a god, either.

jerry! you aren't dumb!!! you expect us to swollow that bullshit?!!! you
could have just as easily said he doesn't worship dog shit, were that the
true case. you obviously didn't just intend to *just* be more specific about
it!

[Steve]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:hJ******************************@comcast.com. ..

Steve wrote:

>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:ms******************************@comcast.com ...

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

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

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

uhhhh...hummmm (trying not to laugh).

well, our friend alan and most other economists like levitt and company,
clearly see two sides to manipulating and predicting ecomonomic states.
being that you're such an expert (really holding it in now) on the
matter, i find it a bit odd that you don't know that sanders is talking
about the supply side rather than the demand side...duely recognizing
that either is typically and respectively the sole target of republicans
and democrats.

me thinks the 'side' your standing on now is the one where the crickets
can clearly be heard chirping.

(now letting loose the supressed hilarity)

No, I understand what he's saying. But the two sides are not separate.
They are intimately intertwined. Without one, the other is worthless. And
you cannot consider one without the other.

ah jerry! you just blurted out the first thing that came to mind before you
read what he was saying. PLEASE, tell me that was the case. i'd hate to have
to consider that you just backpeddled to save face since you actually
*didn't* know what supply/demand side manipulation is.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Shelly wrote:

Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
Jewish homeland. So?

What proportion of the *electorate* is Muslim, tho?

[Steve]

"The Natural Philosopher" <[e-mail] in message
news:11****************@iris.uk.clara.net...

Shelly wrote:

>Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
Jewish homeland. So?

What proportion of the *electorate* is Muslim, tho?

even if you have a point, aren't we supporting the nation (the people) of
israel and not just their gubment?

[Jerry Stuckle]

Steve wrote:

>But when they refuse to allow someone to place a cheche or menorah on city
property (at no government expense), that's exactly what they are doing -
interfering with someone's right to practice their religion. And such a
display does *such great harm* to believers in other religions. It's
public property and should be available to all, as long as it is in good
taste (i.e. no displays from "The Honorable Church of the Naturalists".

'such great harm'...lol. and the slippery slope rises from no less than
these words.

i'm sure the wiccan symbol of an upside-down cross would not offend many. or
how about a swastika (yes, a religious symbol) would not offend anyone. and
how about pentagrams? who says what good taste is?

The upside-down cross or pentagram would offend me, but I would take it
in stride. It's nothing worth getting upset over. The swastika is
another story - not because of its religious nature, but what else it
represent. I think that would be out of line.

if the government allows such things on their properties, they sanction them
implicitly.

No, they allow the use of public property by the public. There is no
sanctioning.

the fact that you feel like i'm hindering you by not allowing you to market
your filth in public places of operation (court houses, schools, etc.), is
absurd. you keep saying you don't try to 'convert' anyone. what other
purpose could there be? are you going to say, 'for historic reasons'? quit
playing dumb! you have churches, homes, any place that allows you to
proliferate your divel...just don't do it through the vehicle of government.

Who said I was trying to convert anyone? I'm proud of my faith, and
want to display it. I don't get upset when I see symbols of other
religions. Why does it upset you so much? Maybe you've got a problem?

>

>>In short its best hope is to act as if it were completely a-theistic. Not
to deny or affirm God, but simply to keep its mucky paws out of that area
altogether. Almost any other course is a recipe for dissent and
ultimately revolution.

They should act such that religions can have the same access to public
facilities as any non-religious group.

uhmmm...they do. both should have NONE provided by the government! period.

They are public places, paid for with my tax dollars. I see no problem
with renting those spaces out, as long as the rent covers the cost of
maintenance, cleaning, etc.

Government buildings have always been open to the public for public
functions - stretching way back to the colonial days, when people could
meet in town halls. And it continues to this day.

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

[Shelly]

"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:0T***************@newsfe12.lga...

>
"Herb" <he****@mail.comwrote in message
news:11********************@57g2000hsv.googlegroup s.com...
shelly, i kind of got the feeling that this was one of those kind of
nut-jobs from his first post. now i guess we both know.

loose nut on the keyboard! alert, alert...killfile, killfile.

Already done yesterday,

Shelly

[Shelly]

"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:Sb***************@newsfe12.lga...

(he smiles as he tries to playfully edge jerry ever so close to a
forth-coming godwin)

I don't think many people understand that reference. I won't explain it
because in doing so I would be doing it and hence would the loser of the
argument.

Shelly

[Shelly]

"The Natural Philosopher" <[e-mail] in message
news:11****************@iris.uk.clara.net...

Shelly wrote:

>Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
Jewish homeland. So?

What proportion of the *electorate* is Muslim, tho?

25%. They are full-fledged citizens like everyone else. Theyere is only
one difference. They have the option to not serve in the army if they so
choose. That is what makes Herb's statements such a crock of shit.

Shelly

[Jerry Stuckle]

Shelly wrote:

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:8v******************************@comcast.com. ..

>First of all, we aren't trying to take over the world. But you are trying
to take over the world by destroying all religion. You're not doing it in
meetings - you're trying to take away our legal rights to practice our
religions.

Once again, prove your idiotic statement here. You are claiming that by not
giving you favorable status, you are being deprived of your legal right to
practice your religion. That is out and out bullshit. You can prractice
your religion as you see fit anywhere EXCEPT at public expense and on public
property -- just like ANYONE ELSE.

No, I'm not asking for favorable status. And I said NOTHING about
PUBLIC EXPENSE. I have NEVER, ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD said public money
should be spent on religion.

Jerry, are you old enough to remember the "Domino Theory". It was
formulated by Republicans that if one country falls to Communism, then its
neighbor would fall and so on. It is another name for the slippery slope.
Once you permit religious displays on public property, then ALL religious
displays need to be allowed. That includes Satanism, The Religion of
Nudity, etc. etc. Just because you may find it offensive is not a valid
response to disallow a specific religious display. (I can assure you that
there are many non-Christians that would find Christian displays
offensive.). If it becomes the provence of government to decide what is
offensive and what is not in religious displays, then you can go the road of
Saudi Arabia where you, Jerry, would not be able to bring a cross into the
country. Better to make it black and white. NO religious displays on
public property and NO such displays funded by government.

That's fine with me. Let all religions display, as long as it is in
good taste - i.e. no nudity. Also, it is the government's job to decide
what is offensive and what is not. They do it every day. Try walking
down the street naked. You'll be arrested. That's the government
deciding your nudity is offensive.

As for Satanism, Wicca, etc., while I might find those symbols
personally offensive, there is nothing in the symbols which goes against
the morals of the community, so they should be allowed.

>>we have no movement outside of not allowing religion to permeate *every*
sector of public domain. that is an action and far from diatribe.

If you had your way, there would be no religion. You've said so yourself.

He didn't say what you are implying here. His position, and I paraphrase
here, "is that he hopes everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom that
God is irrelevent.". You, on the other hand, are implying that he wants
this to happen by fiat. He never even hinted at such a situation.

I never said he wanted it to happen by fiat. Don't put words in my mouth.

>>it's a logical comparison. however and again, my *claim* is that there is
no objective evidence that god exists! get that through your pea-sized
brain! the logical conclusion would be that there is no god.

The *logical* conclusion is that there would be no way to know whether a
god exists or not.

1 - The "scientific" statement is that the existence of god cannot be
proven.
2 - The "logical" next step is that since there is no basis for such a
hypothesis, then it should be rejected until such time as some evidence can
be brought forth.

That is what he is saying.

Since there is no proof one way or the other, there is no "next logical
step", because any "next step" can be neither proven nor disproven.

>You're trying to say leprechauns are gods. My statement is they are not
recognized by society as gods. Not even the Irish believe they are.

You totally misunderstand what he is saying.

No, I understand exactly what he's saying.

>>i'm not against ANY religion. i go to church every sunday and blend in
just like you, jerry. i suspect a surprising number of your flock are
just like me, skeptical people in fancy suits just hoping no one asks,
'so, how's your walk with our lord jesus christ'. by the way, i fit in
quite well and am close with my pastor...we golf every weekend. go
figure.

So you're saying you're a hypocrite. You go to church but don't believe
in the teachings of the church. Ok.

He is not a hypocrite. He SAID he is going there for the social aspect. It
is a meeting place, after all. Look up the word "hypocrite". It means
saying one thing but doing the opposite. He SAYS he goes for the social
aspect but ignores the religious message as irrelevent. Where is the
hypocrisy? Where is he doing the opposite of what he says?

Shelly

He goes to church and tries to stay awake during the service. Does he
tell his minster and friends he is an atheist and only goes there to
socialize?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:FP******************************@comcast.com. ..

And why should I have to "prove" my God exists to you - or anyone else?
There is no fraud involved. I have stated my belief. You can choose to
believe or not. It's up to you.

It depends upon what you said. If you said, "I believe God exists", the you
are correct that you don't have to prove anything to anyone because it is a
simple statement of faith. If you said "God exists", then the onus of proof
is upon you because that is a statement that you make as fact. In that
situation the burden of proof is not upon him to show the non-existence
(which is impossible), but upon you to support your statement.

Not to you, there isn't. And no, I'm not even going to try to provide any
objective evidence to you - or anyone else. I have my beliefs, and that's
good enough for me.

Either there is objective proof or there isn't. He claims there isn't. It
is impossible to prove non-existence. All you need to do to show his
statement to be wrong is to produce a single instance of objective evidence.
Unless you can do that, (which you can't), his statement stands undisputed.

I'm glad you finally admit it. But that is a direct contradiction to your
previous statement: "sorry, religious people are in the *business* of
converting."

So a correct statement would be "sorry, religious people I'VE MET are in
the *business* of converting." A big difference.

As a point of fact, I will refute Steve's statement this time. The official
policy in Judaism is to DIScourage conversions, and it has been the policy
for at least a thousand years. See, Jerry, all it takes is one instance to
show the statement to be wrong.

>there should be no need for a situation that required an opt-out option
in the first place!

Sure. They all worship a god (or in some cases gods). It is a prayer to
their god.

And what of the atheists? They don't worship a god. Again, only one
instance is needed to disprove your statement. (...or are you saying "to
hell with the atheists"? :-) )

>
And the world is full of opt-out situations every day. Every choice you
make you can opt to go another way.

For adults, that is one thing. For children it is quite another. Peer
pressure disappears to a large degree as we mature. Not so when we are
young. You are promoting cruely to children by your "opt-out choice".

>
Let the state remain NEUTRAL in such matters. Neither promoting nor
prohibiting.

The greatest asset in our democracy is the protection of the rights of the
minority from the tyrrany of the majority. Majority governs, but it must
not rule (do you understand the distinction?) . That is what the Bill of
Rights and the rest of it is all about.

>you have equal access to practice your beliefs as anyone else. the
standard is the same. the laws are the same. if you feel the gov. should
favor you more, then you're more arrogant that i thought.

No, but YOU feel the government should favor YOU more. I just want the
right to practice my religion. You want to refuse me that right - even
though it is doing NO HARM to you.

Jerry, please stop with this load of crap. NOONE IS REFUSING YOU THE RIGHT
TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION. PERIOD. We are merely saying you can't do it on
MY property nor at MY expense. That means not on public property nor at
public expense. You can do it all you want on PRIVATE property and paid for
by you.

Why are you dense here? We have told you this how many times now? Yet, you
insist on repeating this bullshit. Are you blinded? pig-headed? or just
plain too damn stupid to understand? Over the years I had thought more of
your intelligence than that you can't grasp the meaning of the simple
statement that has been made to you over and over and over and over ad
infinitum.

I've had it. Unless you can show how we are REFUSING YOU THE RIGHT TO
PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION, and not come up with the stupidity you have
presented, I will bow out and let you live on in your ignorance.

>>After all - what harm does it do to you that a coach offers a prayer
before a big game? Are you afraid your children will start asking
questions about something you don't believe in?

i don't know. you tell me. what if he's leading your kid in a prayer to
satan? what would your problem be with that? what, are you afraid your
children will start asking questions about something you don't believe
in?

don't be moronic.

You're the one who wants it banned, not me. And a non-denominational
prayer, by definition, is one towards no specific god. So he can't be
praying to Satan - it would not be non-denominational.

Don't be moronic.

Once you mention "god" in a positive sense, it is no longer
"non-denominational". That is because you have already excluded atheists.
Again, all that is needed is ONE instance to refute the statement.

How about "Let us all reflect upon what a great country we live in, wish for
the health of our family and friends, be thankful for the opportunities
presented to each one of us, and hope for a future of peace and happiness"?
Would you, Jerry, call that a prayer (no mention of God or pray or giving
thanks)? Would you, Steve? And Steve, isn't this sort of what you think
about when the rest of your church is "praying"? I know that this is what I
think of every time I hear the national anthem.

Shelly

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:MN******************************@comcast.com. ..

No, I'm not asking for favorable status. And I said NOTHING about PUBLIC
EXPENSE. I have NEVER, ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD said public money should
be spent on religion.

If you dislay on public property, then you are using government money (as
they purchased the land).

That's fine with me. Let all religions display, as long as it is in good
taste - i.e. no nudity. Also, it is the government's job to decide

What about the "Anti-Christian" religion that says awful things about Jesus?
There are so many religions, surely someone can start that one? Is that in
"bad taste"? Why?

what is offensive and what is not. They do it every day. Try walking
down the street naked. You'll be arrested. That's the government
deciding your nudity is offensive.

Only in a public place. I have every right to practice nudity if I want to
in a private place with the owner's permission. (No, I am not a nudist).
Likewise, you have every right to display you religion in a private place.

>
As for Satanism, Wicca, etc., while I might find those symbols personally
offensive, there is nothing in the symbols which goes against the morals
of the community, so they should be allowed.

What about "Anti-Christianism"?

>He didn't say what you are implying here. His position, and I paraphrase
here, "is that he hopes everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom
that God is irrelevent.". You, on the other hand, are implying that he
wants this to happen by fiat. He never even hinted at such a situation.

I never said he wanted it to happen by fiat. Don't put words in my mouth.

Look up the word "implying" in the dictionary and then we'll speak further
to this point. When you say he is refusing you the right to practice your
religion (your word, right?), well how is he doing that? By having the law
say so, that's how. Well, please also look up the "fiat".

>>>it's a logical comparison. however and again, my *claim* is that there
is no objective evidence that god exists! get that through your
pea-sized brain! the logical conclusion would be that there is no god.

The *logical* conclusion is that there would be no way to know whether a
god exists or not.

1 - The "scientific" statement is that the existence of god cannot be
proven.
2 - The "logical" next step is that since there is no basis for such a
hypothesis, then it should be rejected until such time as some evidence
can be brought forth.

That is what he is saying.

Since there is no proof one way or the other, there is no "next logical
step", because any "next step" can be neither proven nor disproven.

Not so. Statement: Pigs can fly. Experiment: Toss a pig off a ledge and
it falls. Toss it many times and it never flies. Logic: Pigs can't fly.
Jerry: There is no proof against that one of those times in the future the
pig might fly, so there is no "next step" and the statement can neither be
proven nor disproven. What he is saying is that there is no logical basis
to accept the hypothesis of a god, so, logically he rejects it. He is NOT
saying the existence of god is disproven, only that there is no logical
basis for accepting it.

>

>>You're trying to say leprechauns are gods. My statement is they are not
recognized by society as gods. Not even the Irish believe they are.

You totally misunderstand what he is saying.

No, I understand exactly what he's saying.

No.

>He is not a hypocrite. He SAID he is going there for the social aspect.
It is a meeting place, after all. Look up the word "hypocrite". It
means saying one thing but doing the opposite. He SAYS he goes for the
social aspect but ignores the religious message as irrelevent. Where is
the hypocrisy? Where is he doing the opposite of what he says?

Shelly

He goes to church and tries to stay awake during the service. Does he
tell his minster and friends he is an atheist and only goes there to
socialize?

If it came up, I'm sure he would. If it already has come up, I'm sure he
has. Considering how strongly he has voiced his position, do you REALLY,
think he would keep silent -- especially when he plays golf with the pastor?
I think not!

In any case, you have no right to call him a hypocrite unless he tells you
he lied to the pastor about his atheism. That he goes for a reason other
than yours is totally irrelevent.

You may pay your taxes willingly because you believe our jackass president
is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I pay them for a myriad of
reasons, not the least of which is I would go to jail if I didn't -- and I
do so in spite of the stupid war that jackass is conducting. Does that make
me a hypocrite because I pay them even though I dislike a lot of what they
are doing, while you do so for the greater glory of the Bush legacy?

Shelly

Shelly

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message You stated "I
hope everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom that

God is irrelevant." So by your own words, you want there to be no
religion.

"Imagine there's not heaven.
No religion too.
.....

Imagine all the people living life in peace.....

Now you may call me a dreamer.
But I'm not the only one......"

--- John Lennon

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:YO******************************@comcast.com. ..

ROFLMAO! More ad-homonyms.

adhominems

[Steve]

<snip>

You stated "I hope everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom that
God is irrelevant." So by your own words, you want there to be no
religion.

<snip>

i'll stop reading here. you need to get your facts straight jerry. those are
NOT my words. someone else in this thread said that. 'so by you own words'
nothing! your first clue, jerry, would be to note the use of capitalization.
see anything different about how it write, and what you quote?

[Jerry Stuckle]

Herb wrote:

On Sep 19, 7:16 am, Jerry Stuckle <[e-mail]:

>Steve wrote:

>>>I can still be a Christian if I don't go to church, don't take communion,
get married by a judge... My beliefs are what make me one.
so, i'm a christian too if i have a lack of belief in christ? wow, they said
getting to heaven was as easy as "a b c", but i had no idea!

I never said anything of the sort.

>>jerry, you have your head so far up your biblical ass, it isn't even funny
anymore.

And you need to learn how to read simple English. You can't even
understand two sentences when put together.

He seems to be the kind that misstates what you said, then attacks the
misstatement as if you had said it. Those politically-correct types
are allergic to correct reasoning. They also are very trite.

Yep, I've noticed that. But I've come to expect it - and not just in
religion. If you can't refute an argument, twist it around until you can.

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Herb wrote:

On Sep 16, 10:13 pm, Jerry Stuckle <[e-mail]:

>Michael Fesser wrote:

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

ROFLMAO!

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

you are arguing with a bunch of emotional idiots, Jerry.

That's true. They really don't know how to carry on an intellectual
conversation, do they? Or acknowledge that Christians, Jews, Muslims,
Wiccans and others have rights, also.

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

[Shelly]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:cL******************************@comcast.com. ..

Herb wrote:

>On Sep 19, 7:16 am, Jerry Stuckle <[e-mail]:

>>Steve wrote:

I can still be a Christian if I don't go to church, don't take
communion,
get married by a judge... My beliefs are what make me one.
so, i'm a christian too if i have a lack of belief in christ? wow, they
said
getting to heaven was as easy as "a b c", but i had no idea!
I never said anything of the sort.

jerry, you have your head so far up your biblical ass, it isn't even
funny
anymore.
And you need to learn how to read simple English. You can't even
understand two sentences when put together.

He seems to be the kind that misstates what you said, then attacks the
misstatement as if you had said it. Those politically-correct types
are allergic to correct reasoning. They also are very trite.

Yep, I've noticed that. But I've come to expect it - and not just in
religion. If you can't refute an argument, twist it around until you can.

Pot - kettle - black.

Shelly

[Shelly]

"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:gV**************@newsfe05.lga...

jerry, please be specific about what it is he's saying for you. i just
don't see it, having review his and your dialogs.

Steve, fuh-ged-a-bowd-it.

Shelly
..

[Steve]

"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

This is to Steve:
It's not Godwin, but I this is close enough to count. Game over.

man! i think he must have googled it. i lead one conversation right to the
brink by comparison of the 'its only one country, oh its only one more, ah
those are unimportant countries' to describe the slippery slope. he didn't
take the bait. i had to be careful with my wording not to do one myself.

did you see the prediction of pascal's wager...followed by pascal's wager? i
chuckled at that one. i forgot to claim my five pounds though...should be
ten since i called it before hand. ;^)

This reminds me of a story I heard once. A European visitor to China a
couple of hundred years ago saw two men arguing and yelling at each other
so violently that he was sure a fight would break out and that one or the
other would pull a knife and kill the other. Yet, even though this went
on a very long time, nothing violent happened and finally it ended. The
man asked his guide "why did they not get into a physical fight?". The
answer he got was that the first one to throw a punch was deemed the
loser.

Read this post by Jerry, especially the second half.

oh, i've been following along. i thought i had over-responded a couple of
times - and even sort of apologized in another thread for it, inclusive of
my love of the f-bomb. i about blew a gasket from disbelief! i've NEVER seen
him that riled. i may seem to talk passionately about this subject and get
bent out of shape, but in no way am i emotionally tied to a discussion of
theory and opinion! you are either right and you are successful at
demonstrating that you are, or you couldn't get your point across, or, you
are not so right as you first thought.

there's either got to be something else going on with him, or he's tired of
hearing us disagree with him and he's flustered. i don't know. i hope he can
leave those sentiments in this thread. i'd hate to killfile jerry if he
reacts this way in other threads even though we'll probably never speak of
this subject again.

btw, i haven't forgotten to do the 'email-you-and-i-get-new-address-for-you'
for job opportunities either. just been busy. i stop and come here for light
reading before it's heads-down for a few more hours.

regards,

me

[Steve]

"Shelly" <sh************@asap-consult.comwrote in message
news:13*************@corp.supernews.com...

>
"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:gV**************@newsfe05.lga...

>jerry, please be specific about what it is he's saying for you. i just
don't see it, having review his and your dialogs.

Steve, fuh-ged-a-bowd-it.

ah well.

cheers

[The Natural Philosopher]

Shelly wrote:

"Steve" <no****@example.comwrote in message
news:gV**************@newsfe05.lga...

>jerry, please be specific about what it is he's saying for you. i just
don't see it, having review his and your dialogs.

Steve, fuh-ged-a-bowd-it.

Indeed. This thread isn't about religion: It's about Jerry.

Now we all know that Jerry has issues, and roughly what they are, and
the rest we can guess.

Shelly
.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Herb wrote:

On Sep 16, 10:13 pm, Jerry Stuckle <[e-mail]:

>Michael Fesser wrote:

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

ROFLMAO!

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

you are arguing with a bunch of emotional idiots, Jerry.

It's funny. After my posts last night I told a forum member I've been
conversing with on email that someone would claim a Godwin on that.

And they didn't let me down.

When you look back through the threads, it's amazing how illogical they
are, and how "their rights" are more important than "my rights".

I don't mind a good debate. However, in this case too many statements I
made were ignored - either not responded to or the subject was changed,
because they didn't have a response. And too many times I've been
accused of saying things I never said. But not ONCE did they correct
their accusation or apologize for it.

Enough is enough. It's obvious these guys have nothing to stand on, so
they try to twist anything they can to meet their needs.

They can claim a "win". Quite frankly, I don't give a damn.

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

[The Natural Philosopher]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Herb wrote:

>On Sep 16, 10:13 pm, Jerry Stuckle <[e-mail]:

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

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

you are arguing with a bunch of emotional idiots, Jerry.

It's funny. After my posts last night I told a forum member I've been
conversing with on email that someone would claim a Godwin on that.

And they didn't let me down.

When you look back through the threads, it's amazing how illogical they
are, and how "their rights" are more important than "my rights".

If you had achieved adulkhood, you would have realised that like God,
Rights are just another fiction.

Its all in yer mind Jerry. This feeing tat somewhere Out There is a
Authority that you can appeal to that is Fair and Just.

Those of us with crap dads who died early labour under no such
paternalistic illusions. Grow up Jerry. There is no Big Daddy, and such
rights as exist are *agreed upon* by fallible human beings out of mutual
and occasionally enlightened self interest.

I don't mind a good debate. However, in this case too many statements I
made were ignored - either not responded to or the subject was changed,
because they didn't have a response.

Mostly by you.

You have ignored my last thre posts of some depth.

And too many times I've been

accused of saying things I never said. But not ONCE did they correct
their accusation or apologize for it.

This is pure projection Jerry. The only person guilty of ALL of the
above is you. One concludes that you are either deliberately trolling,
or are in fact in need of some counselling.

Enough is enough. It's obvious these guys have nothing to stand on, so
they try to twist anything they can to meet their needs.

They can claim a "win". Quite frankly, I don't give a damn.

Who was trying to win anything, but you?

Its not important to anyone else.

Its important to you that God exists. Its irrelevant to me. It's merely
and excuse to write out some philosophical ideas I am working on, in
between scads of dull PHP.

Go away and repair your ego: Its obvious you can't live without it.
That's OK too. The only real loser on that front is you, but if you are
that weak, maybe its for the best.