On 2022-09-09 09:03, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <qAHSK.90416$elEa.3488@fx09.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>> In article <XnsAF0C9152CF814taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Jan 6 was some hillbillies who had a party that got out of hand,
>>>> and did very minimal damage to anybody.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> Dead is "minimal damage"?
>>
>> Don't respond to Terry's trolling, please.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> I have mixed feelings about that as a general policy. On the one
> hand, feeding a troll doesn't work terribly well (and if it did,
> they wouldn't actually be a troll). On the other hand, allowing
> obvious falsehoods to stand unchallenged allows those just
> standing by observing to, potentially, conclude that the troll
> must be correct because no one is objecting.

Precisely.

On 2022-09-09 21:04, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote in
> news:d9vnhhhndv2mourtt73svsj45463mafvl1@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 21:24:44 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-09-08 20:30, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in news:rHx6vt.u05
>>>> @kithrup.com:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <XnsAF0C9152CF814taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
>>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Jan 6 was some hillbillies who had a party that got out of
>>>>>> hand, and did very minimal damage to anybody.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>> Dead is "minimal damage"?
>>>>>
>>>> Tha Antifa/BLM riots killed a lost more peole. On purpose.
>>>
>>> Another lie.
>>
>> What would YOU call them then?
>
> Whatever he's told to, by the voices in his head.
>
> The dude's *not* right in the head. You know that. Don't feed his
> illness.
>

LOL!

On 2022-09-09 20:03, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 21:24:44 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-09-08 20:30, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in news:rHx6vt.u05
>>> @kithrup.com:
>>>
>>>> In article <XnsAF0C9152CF814taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Jan 6 was some hillbillies who had a party that got out of hand,
>>>>> and did very minimal damage to anybody.
>>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> Dead is "minimal damage"?
>>>>
>>> Tha Antifa/BLM riots killed a lost more peole. On purpose.
>>
>> Another lie.
>
> What would YOU call them then? I sure as HELL wouldn't describe them
> as "mostly peaceful" - and if the claim is that the violent ones
> weren't associated with the "real" protest then one would want to see
> soem evidence that the violent ones were actually told to leave the
> demonstration and stay far far away.

I didn't describe them as "mostly peaceful:

I take issue with "deliberately".

In article <1ovnhh50e5e3d0t5pagf5o34mgia3rkkme@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 16:46:18 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>>These would, I suspect, mostly have the mainstream denominations;
>>>anti-RC rhetoric probably continued on in the others for a while. And,
>>>clearly, some groups are keeping the flame alive.
>>
>>I know of a Lutheran, who married a RC in 1956 - his parents wouldn't go
>>to the wedding.
>
>On the other hand I know a Roman Catholic (fairly nominal) who married
>a Protestant in 1984 - and while she was told they could be married in
>the sacristy they would not be allowed anywhere near the high altar.
>So they had a non-Catholic wedding despite the groom's willingness to
>do so. The groom was also willing to go through Catholic pre-wedding
>courses.
>
>Her sister 15 years later married an atheist (I emphasize NOT an
>agnostic) and they WERE married at the high altar. Not only that but
>the bride was pregnant at the time of their wedding. (I've no idea
>whether the priest knew though given when her daughter was born she
>had to be showing a little bit)
>
>Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because these are
>close family to me and clearly the message is that if you are a
>Catholic (however nominal) it is better to marry an atheist than a
>Protestant since the former MIGHT convert while the latter is far less
>likely to.

When Dorothy--who was RC--and I--functionally atheist, fallen
away Unitarian--were married in 1971, they wanted us to go
through pre-marital counseling...until I gave a snarky answer to
an impertinent question and we got thrown out. A private session
with the priest convinced him we (a) know what we were doing, and
(b) had sufficient financial stability to carry it off. The one
thing the priest wanted me to agree to--which, because of the
exact wording used, I did--was to "permit any children of the
union to be raised Catholic." Even at that point I fully
expected that any kids we had would kick over the traces on
relgious education sooner or later.

They did. It was just sooner than I expected.

As for potential conversion... One of Dorothy's goals was to
convert me by example. If she'd been the *only* example of
Catholicism I ever encountered, it might have worked. Maybe.

In article <XnsAF0DD613460EFtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:rHz1IJ.qJF@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <XnsAF0DB1F25581Ataustincagmailcom@85.12.62.245>,
>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>You really should get your news from more sources than C(ommunist)N
>>>(ews)N(etwork).
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> I don't get *any* of my news from CNN. On the other hand, I
>> don't get any of it from Faux News, either.
>>
>I don't know where you get it, but if they told you no one was
>murdered and the damage wasn't *extensive* during the 2016 riots,
>they lied. Not misunderstood, not played down, not mistaken, they
>*lied*.

(Hal Heydt)
yes, there was damage. Whether or not it was "extensive" is a
judgement call. Some individual building certainly took what I
would consider to be extensive damage.

As for out and out murders? Got numbers? Got numbers on *both*
sides?

And before you get your bowels in an uproar, in Oakland there
were a couple of right wing extremists who took advantage of the
fact that there was a demonstation a couple of blocks away to
shoot and kill (there's a murder for you) a guard at a Federal
building. One of them later set up an ambush in the Santa Cruz
mountains and killed a deputy sheriff. You can have that as a
murder as well. But neither of those involved anybody in
the--actually destructive--demonstarion.

I should also point out, though not current, that in *all* of the
demonstrations on and around the UC Berkeley campus, no one was
killed until the Alameda County Sheriffs were brought in during
the "People's Park" event and one of the sheriffs shot and
killed a guy who was sitting on top of a roof just watching.

In article <rHz9Io.97F@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <XnsAF0DD613460EFtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:rHz1IJ.qJF@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <XnsAF0DB1F25581Ataustincagmailcom@85.12.62.245>,
>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>You really should get your news from more sources than C(ommunist)N
>>>>(ews)N(etwork).
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> I don't get *any* of my news from CNN. On the other hand, I
>>> don't get any of it from Faux News, either.
>>>
>>I don't know where you get it, but if they told you no one was
>>murdered and the damage wasn't *extensive* during the 2016 riots,
>>they lied. Not misunderstood, not played down, not mistaken, they
>>*lied*.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>yes, there was damage. Whether or not it was "extensive" is a
>judgement call. Some individual building certainly took what I
>would consider to be extensive damage.
>
>As for out and out murders? Got numbers? Got numbers on *both*
>sides?
>
>And before you get your bowels in an uproar, in Oakland there
>were a couple of right wing extremists who took advantage of the
>fact that there was a demonstation a couple of blocks away to
>shoot and kill (there's a murder for you) a guard at a Federal
>building. One of them later set up an ambush in the Santa Cruz
>mountains and killed a deputy sheriff. You can have that as a
>murder as well. But neither of those involved anybody in
>the--actually destructive--demonstarion.
>
>I should also point out, though not current, that in *all* of the
>demonstrations on and around the UC Berkeley campus, no one was
>killed until the Alameda County Sheriffs were brought in during
>the "People's Park" event and one of the sheriffs shot and
>killed a guy who was sitting on top of a roof just watching.

(Hal Heydt)
Should have mentioned as part of that last paragraph that it
refers to the mid- to late-1960s. The classic "riots at
Berkeley". Roughly, the "Free Speech Movement" to "People's
Park".

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 8:07:25 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:
> In article <XnsAF0DB43D8BA49...@85.12.62.245>,
> Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >One cannot "teach the controversy" if there is no controversy, and
> >there _is_ _no_ _controversy_, because creationism and intelligent
> >design are *not* science, and don't even pretend to be.

> (Hal Heydt)
> Correct on both points.

The thing is, though, in the post he replied to, I *agreed* with that.

Which is why I noted that the accomodation they ask for cannot
be granted. And instead I noted how we would have to proceed instead
in order to respect the First Amendment rights of Creationist parents.

Science classes can't indoctrinate people with the truth of evolution,
because that is a violation of religious freedom. But they _also_ can't
teach lies, such as the lie that Creationism or "Intelligent Design" has
any merit.

And so I resolved the paradox.

John Savard

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:

> yes, there was damage. Whether or not it was "extensive" is a
> judgement call. Some individual building certainly took what I
> would consider to be extensive damage.
>
> As for out and out murders? Got numbers? Got numbers on *both*
> sides?

Of course, though, his real question is about the behavior of the media.

When a riot damages the property of innocent people, of course the
people living in the community will be angry at the rioters.

I myself think that, in general, in principle, it is entirely right and proper
for the police to use lethal force to prevent property damage. After all,
someone proposing to break a window, let's say, had a _choice_. He could
have chosen not to break any windows that day. The owner of the window
didn't make any wrong choices.

So for an innocent person to be out of pocket is an injustice. For someone
to be killed to save a window... well, it may be a bit harsh, but it is not unjust.
If he wanted to live, he knew how to arrange that. Just respect the rights of
others.

But there have to be limits; we have to take into account the world we live in.
After all that black people have suffered in the United States, surely it is
*understandable* why an event like the death of George Floyd - *and* its
apparently going unpunished - would cause an eruption of rage.

So the news media had a choice. They could ignore the causes, and contribute
to sending the country into a death-spiral of mutual misunderstanding between
whites and blacks, leading to all-out race war... or they could try to calm down
the _understandable_ public outrage at rioting, *whatever* the cause.

Contrast that with the events of January 6. Here, we weren't talking about
members of an oppressed group. No, we were talking about a crowd of
stupid yahoosa - among whom emblems of evil racism, such as the
Nazi swastika and the Confederate flag were right at home - who had been
manipulated by deranged conspiracy theorists... *and* by shadowy
billionaires funding extremist causes, such as denial of global warming
and opposition to public-health measures against COVID-19.

And they weren't just out to cause damage and devastation.

They were out to CHANGE THE RESULT OF AN ELECTION. To turn
America from a democracy into a dictatorship.

Again, the _responsible_ thing to do is to increase public awareness
of the situation, since here is a menace to the very heart of American
liberty.

The death of George Floyd challenged America to start living up to its
ideals.

Donald Trump's "stolen election" claims are a dagger aimed at the heart
of America's continued existence as the democracy that we know and
love. That the election result was somewhat unexpected - because for
once, thanks to mail-in ballots, voter suppression measures couldn't
keep black people away from the polls - so that *this* is what Trump is
really objecting to - only makes the contrast even more glaring.

Of course, all of this is lost on people like Terry Austin. To them, it's
just the leftist mainstream media picking on little old conservatives.

John Savard

On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 03:07:25 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >One cannot "teach the controversy" if there is no controversy, and
> >there _is_ _no_ _controversy_, because creationism and intelligent
> >design are *not* science, and don't even pretend to be.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Correct on both points.

....except for being called "Creation Science" and
"Scientific Creationism" until that was thrown out
of the public schools by law, in the 1980s.
Admittedly - for not having any actual science.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 13:11:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 19:06:27 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 6:57:32 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > There was a quote from around that time, with someone mocking the
>> > idea that the whole Earth was swinging around but asking if these
>> > people rode in a carriage and thought the scenery was flowing past
>> > their window. I was just like, "But, but, but..."
>> Obviously, Isaac Newton was only able to come up with his formulation of
>> the principle of relativity - to later be carried to greater heights by the
>> justly famed Albert Einstein - because of engineering advances in the suspensions
>> of horse-drawn carriages, that finally permitted people to imagine the notion
>> that a ride could be so smooth that one could actually be in doubt about whether
>> or not one was moving.
>
>Or, the larger rivers, and canals.

Or a train, if it starts up smoothly enough.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 17:03:27 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 18:57:21 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 5:55:32 PM UTC-6, Jay E. Morris wrote:
>> >> Don't remember how we got there but at one point he calls
>> >> out to his mother, "do we know anybody for sure going to hell?". The
>> >> instant reply was "Martin Luther".
>> >
>> >As he was the author of "The Jews and Their Lies", it's hard for me to disagree.
>> Yes, he was. The traditional excuse is that he was old and cranky. But
>> he was also a man of his times.
>> >Also, he accused Copernicus of trying to "overturn the whole science
>> >of astronomy".
>> I don't doubt it, but I do not recall ever hearing it before.
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus>
>mentions a brief, doubtfully quoted remark over dinner
>from Luther, but a call for government suppression from
>"Luther's collaborator Philipp Melanchthon".

Melanchthon was not Luther. But they were collaborators, as you note.

And what was to be suppressed? Luther is, IIRC, on record as arguing
that religiously obnoxious persons should be /banished/, not
/executed/.

Keep in mind that "religious freedom" as we know it did not exist back
then. Luther's position was "cujus regio, ejus religio" (the spelling
of which may be dubious). Except for the Jews, everybody was expected
to be a Christian of whatever form the ruler was.

>You get this when people are awfully religious -
>Luther is said to argue that since the bible says
>Joshua commanded and got God to make the sun
>(and the moon) to stop moving, and not the earth,
>evidently it was not the earth that was moving anyway.
>All of which is not good evidence against, well,
>everything else - unless you're religious.

As I said, educated in Scholasticism and a man of his time.

That might, however, support the authenticity of his rejection of
Copernicus, who did indeed have the Earth moving. Even though "moving"
here means "rotating", while in Copernicus it mostly meant "circling
the Sun". Although, clearly, rotating would have to be involved to get
the Sun to rise and set.

I think it was Copernicus who pointed out that a rotating Earth would
be moving a lot slower than a rotating fixed sphere of stars so far
away that the Earth was but a point in comparison.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 20:11:30 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 16:46:18 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>>These would, I suspect, mostly have the mainstream denominations;
>>>anti-RC rhetoric probably continued on in the others for a while. And,
>>>clearly, some groups are keeping the flame alive.
>>
>>I know of a Lutheran, who married a RC in 1956 - his parents wouldn't go
>>to the wedding.
>
>On the other hand I know a Roman Catholic (fairly nominal) who married
>a Protestant in 1984 - and while she was told they could be married in
>the sacristy they would not be allowed anywhere near the high altar.
>So they had a non-Catholic wedding despite the groom's willingness to
>do so. The groom was also willing to go through Catholic pre-wedding
>courses.
>
>Her sister 15 years later married an atheist (I emphasize NOT an
>agnostic) and they WERE married at the high altar. Not only that but
>the bride was pregnant at the time of their wedding. (I've no idea
>whether the priest knew though given when her daughter was born she
>had to be showing a little bit)

The film /Sorcerer/, at the start, suggests that this was not an
unknown situation.

BTW, my impression (based on something some teacher said sometime
somewhere) is that, when the circuit riding preachers of the Old Old
West rode into a town in, say, Ken-tuck-ee, they found a bunch of kids
to baptize and a bunch of couples, considered married by the
community, to official join to each other.

Customs adapt with the times.

>Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because these are
>close family to me and clearly the message is that if you are a
>Catholic (however nominal) it is better to marry an atheist than a
>Protestant since the former MIGHT convert while the latter is far less
>likely to.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 10:02:37 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 10/09/22 04:12, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 17:22:29 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/09/22 16:25, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-08 20:32, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>
>>> As you haven't yet figured it out for yourself, I have chosen myself to
>>> inform you that Jibini does not reply to your simplistic one or two line
>>> negations of his outrageous statements and will not do so no matter how
>>> appropriate and righteous your protestations are.
>>>
>>> What will you do if he finds out that Zuckerburg has publicly stated
>>> that Arsebook censored all the details from Hunter Biden's damaged
>>> laptop from discussion after advice from the FBI to beware of Russian
>>> disinformation PRIOR to the election? Would that have meant a Trump
>>> victory if disclosed?
>>> Even worse, he may read extracts from Ashley Biden's diary, (misplaced
>>> in a drug rehabilitation centre), which detail her teenage nymphomania
>>> whilst showering with her father.
>>> (The NYT reported on the successful prosecution of those who sold it.)
>>> As an apparent supporter of the US Democrat party, you could be in for a
>>> good kicking if he finds that stuff out and you persist in empty abuse.
>
>snip
>
>> And when, exactly,
>
>Your reply indicates that you have misunderstood the emphasis on PRIOR
>to the election.
>Incriminating details from Hunter Biden's laptop were released to the
>media before the US election but not published till after with the
>pretence that they had just become available. Zuckerberg has recently
>disclosed the REASON for the delay conjuring speculation regarding
>presidential election outcome.

And the message put out has been published and did NOT SPECIFICALLY
MENTION Hunter Biden's laptop. It was quite generic.

So the "speculations" are a smoke-screen. Like everything else from
Trump and his supporters, a complete fake.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 04:52:00 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <XnsAF0DD613460EFtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:rHz1IJ.qJF@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <XnsAF0DB1F25581Ataustincagmailcom@85.12.62.245>,
>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>You really should get your news from more sources than C(ommunist)N
>>>>(ews)N(etwork).
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> I don't get *any* of my news from CNN. On the other hand, I
>>> don't get any of it from Faux News, either.
>>>
>>I don't know where you get it, but if they told you no one was
>>murdered and the damage wasn't *extensive* during the 2016 riots,
>>they lied. Not misunderstood, not played down, not mistaken, they
>>*lied*.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>yes, there was damage. Whether or not it was "extensive" is a
>judgement call. Some individual building certainly took what I
>would consider to be extensive damage.
>
>As for out and out murders? Got numbers? Got numbers on *both*
>sides?
>
>And before you get your bowels in an uproar, in Oakland there
>were a couple of right wing extremists who took advantage of the
>fact that there was a demonstation a couple of blocks away to
>shoot and kill (there's a murder for you) a guard at a Federal
>building. One of them later set up an ambush in the Santa Cruz
>mountains and killed a deputy sheriff. You can have that as a
>murder as well. But neither of those involved anybody in
>the--actually destructive--demonstarion.
>
>I should also point out, though not current, that in *all* of the
>demonstrations on and around the UC Berkeley campus, no one was
>killed until the Alameda County Sheriffs were brought in during
>the "People's Park" event and one of the sheriffs shot and
>killed a guy who was sitting on top of a roof just watching.

Well, it's a lot safer to kill a guy who isn't armed and so can't
shoot back.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 00:28:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:qAHSK.90416
>$elEa.3488@fx09.iad:
>
>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>In article <XnsAF0C9152CF814taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
>>>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Jan 6 was some hillbillies who had a party that got out of hand,
>>>>and did very minimal damage to anybody.
>>>
>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>Dead is "minimal damage"?
>>
>> Don't respond to Terry's trolling, please.
>>
>Especially on subjects where the facts make lefties look like the
>insane, violent insurgents so many of them are.

Project much?

Trump does.

And I want to thank the various Republicans telling us clearly that
they are preparing more insurrectionary activity under the guise of
warning us how upset their followers are.

Here's hoping the FBI, Secret Service, and local law enforcement are
up to the challenge!
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 16:57:52 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 13:11:41 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 19:06:27 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 6:57:32 AM UTC-6, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > There was a quote from around that time, with someone mocking the
> >> > idea that the whole Earth was swinging around but asking if these
> >> > people rode in a carriage and thought the scenery was flowing past
> >> > their window. I was just like, "But, but, but..."
> >> Obviously, Isaac Newton was only able to come up with his formulation of
> >> the principle of relativity - to later be carried to greater heights by the
> >> justly famed Albert Einstein - because of engineering advances in the suspensions
> >> of horse-drawn carriages, that finally permitted people to imagine the notion
> >> that a ride could be so smooth that one could actually be in doubt about whether
> >> or not one was moving.
> >
> >Or, the larger rivers, and canals.
>
> Or a train, if it starts up smoothly enough.

Einstein's thinking - or popular presentations of it -
relies on trains more than Newton's does, although
Wikipedia says there was an ancient Greek railway
at Corinth, and we reproduced Newton's or Galileo's
physics at school with little carts on tracks. I think
Newton's England didn't have very many canals
either, but Cambridge is on a river.

On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 17:06:56 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 17:03:27 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 18:57:21 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 5:55:32 PM UTC-6, Jay E. Morris wrote:
> >> >> Don't remember how we got there but at one point he calls
> >> >> out to his mother, "do we know anybody for sure going to hell?". The
> >> >> instant reply was "Martin Luther".
> >> >
> >> >As he was the author of "The Jews and Their Lies", it's hard for me to disagree.
> >> Yes, he was. The traditional excuse is that he was old and cranky. But
> >> he was also a man of his times.
> >> >Also, he accused Copernicus of trying to "overturn the whole science
> >> >of astronomy".
> >> I don't doubt it, but I do not recall ever hearing it before.
> >
> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus>
> >mentions a brief, doubtfully quoted remark over dinner
> >from Luther, but a call for government suppression from
> >"Luther's collaborator Philipp Melanchthon".
>
> Melanchthon was not Luther. But they were collaborators, as you note.
>
> And what was to be suppressed? Luther is, IIRC, on record as arguing
> that religiously obnoxious persons should be /banished/, not
> /executed/.
>
> Keep in mind that "religious freedom" as we know it did not exist back
> then. Luther's position was "cujus regio, ejus religio" (the spelling
> of which may be dubious). Except for the Jews, everybody was expected
> to be a Christian of whatever form the ruler was.
>
> >You get this when people are awfully religious -
> >Luther is said to argue that since the bible says
> >Joshua commanded and got God to make the sun
> >(and the moon) to stop moving, and not the earth,
> >evidently it was not the earth that was moving anyway.
> >All of which is not good evidence against, well,
> >everything else - unless you're religious.
>
> As I said, educated in Scholasticism and a man of his time.
>
> That might, however, support the authenticity of his rejection of
> Copernicus, who did indeed have the Earth moving. Even though "moving"
> here means "rotating", while in Copernicus it mostly meant "circling
> the Sun". Although, clearly, rotating would have to be involved to get
> the Sun to rise and set.
>
> I think it was Copernicus who pointed out that a rotating Earth would
> be moving a lot slower than a rotating fixed sphere of stars so far
> away that the Earth was but a point in comparison.

Wikipedia reports Melanchthon's understanding of
Copernicanism to include specifically that the sun
is stationary and the earth follows an orbit round it.
The Christians, these ones at least, prefer the sun
moving - except when God is told to stop it - and the
earth not moving and not rotating.

On reflection, Luther referring to the book of Joshua
so specifically might seem too well researched for
casual dinner conversation, but he was a big bible
reader after all - if during meals, I don't know.

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 5:01:21 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
> the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
> chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
> family, and two-income families will do quite well.

To do that you'd have to somehow make it illegal for women
to make life choices that result in them being in low-paid jobs.

In article <a89aed29-0e13-4f84-9a1a-1024f546d8e6n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 03:07:25 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> >One cannot "teach the controversy" if there is no controversy, and
>> >there _is_ _no_ _controversy_, because creationism and intelligent
>> >design are *not* science, and don't even pretend to be.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Correct on both points.
>
>...except for being called "Creation Science" and
>"Scientific Creationism" until that was thrown out
>of the public schools by law, in the 1980s.
>Admittedly - for not having any actual science.

(Hal Heydt)
After which "Intelligent Design" was concocted with a--wink,
wink, nudge, nudge--unknown "Designer".

That dodge fell apart with the Kitxmiller v. Dover case, where
the ID/creationists actually *asked* the judge to rule on whether
or not ID was "science". Much to their chagrin, he ruled it
wasn't.

It was amusing to watch both the trial (by reading the
transcripts) and surrounding events. The ID/creations were
*sure* the fix was in, because the judge was appointed by a
Republican friendly to their cause and they were certain he
wouldn't risk any chance of being nominated for a higher court by
ruling against them. Turned out, he was an honest jurist and
ruled based on the evidence and the law.

One point of evidence was an early draft of the book the
ID/creationists were pushing, _Of Pandas and People_ that had
"cdesign proponentists" embedded in it. A clear, failed, attempt
at a global search-and-replace to swap in "intelligent design" in
place of "creationists".

On 9/10/2022 11:51 AM, Jonathan Harston wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 5:01:21 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
>> the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
>> chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
>> family, and two-income families will do quite well.
>
> To do that you'd have to somehow make it illegal for women
> to make life choices that result in them being in low-paid jobs.

Even when that doesn't happen it is still common for women to get paid
less than a man in the exact same job with the same experience and
seniority.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 8:22:12 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>
> But he *can't* help himself. He literally *can't* resist. The hook is
> set *way* too deep. And he sets it deeper every day, all by himself.

I'm amused every time Terry says this. Who is the
person who is so obsessed with another that he has to mention
him in his sig file? Who has free board in Terry's brain?

> Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
> Lynn:
> https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

pt

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rHxFL6.10Hp@kithrup.com:

> In article <tfedo5$v1mr$2@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>On 9/8/2022 6:59 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <XnsAF0C9152CF814taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Jan 6 was some hillbillies who had a party that got out of
>>>> hand, and did very minimal damage to anybody.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> Dead is "minimal damage"?
>>
>>Did Dorothy never mention Terry Austin to you?
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> She did. Plus back when I was posting, he was active then. So
> no real surprises. I was just curious to see if he was willing
> to define "minimal damage" to include deaths.
>
Compared to the number of murders committed by Antifa/BLM, yes, I
am.

You should be, too.

Plus, of course, everything you believe about people who "died on
Jan 6" is bullshit.

As best anyone can tell, tha actual death toll is:

2 heart attacks
1 drug overdose
One shooting death - of a rioter, by the police (no charge were
filed, and so far as I can tell, appropriately so)

Sock puppet Ocasio-Cortez includes five police officers who *did*
*not* *die* *on* *Jan* *6*.

One died of a stroke - later.
Four suicides - later.

In other words, as best anyone can tell, 8 deaths, none at the
hands of the rioters. Four of natural causes, five directly or
indirectly by their *own* hand.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capi
tol-riot/ https://tinyurl.com/2zr54bbs

Some police deparments have nearly as many outright murders during
Antifa/BLM riots as the total number of deal - without a single
murder charge filed - on Jan 6.

Yes. Minimal damage, compared to the millions of dollars in
property damage, including assorted goverment buildings burned out
and burned to the ground, and numerous deliberate murders.

You, of course, do not agree.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rHz9Io.97F@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsAF0DD613460EFtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:rHz1IJ.qJF@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <XnsAF0DB1F25581Ataustincagmailcom@85.12.62.245>,
>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>You really should get your news from more sources than
>>>>C(ommunist)N (ews)N(etwork).
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> I don't get *any* of my news from CNN. On the other hand, I
>>> don't get any of it from Faux News, either.
>>>
>>I don't know where you get it, but if they told you no one was
>>murdered and the damage wasn't *extensive* during the 2016
>>riots, they lied. Not misunderstood, not played down, not
>>mistaken, they *lied*.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> yes, there was damage. Whether or not it was "extensive" is a
> judgement call. Some individual building certainly took what I
> would consider to be extensive damage.
>
> As for out and out murders? Got numbers? Got numbers on *both*
> sides?
>
> And before you get your bowels in an uproar, in Oakland there
> were a couple of right wing extremists who took advantage of the
> fact that there was a demonstation a couple of blocks away to
> shoot and kill (there's a murder for you) a guard at a Federal
> building. One of them later set up an ambush in the Santa Cruz
> mountains and killed a deputy sheriff. You can have that as a
> murder as well. But neither of those involved anybody in
> the--actually destructive--demonstarion.
>
> I should also point out, though not current, that in *all* of
> the demonstrations on and around the UC Berkeley campus, no one
> was killed until the Alameda County Sheriffs were brought in
> during the "People's Park" event and one of the sheriffs shot
> and killed a guy who was sitting on top of a roof just watching.

Not a single murder charge has been filed against anyone involved
in the Jan 6 riot. Including against the police officer who shot
and killed a rioter, the only deliberate killing all day.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:9dcc66bb-0db1-4dc7-86a3-3d366308bfbbn@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 11:01:22 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt
> wrote:
>
>> yes, there was damage. Whether or not it was "extensive" is a
>> judgement call. Some individual building certainly took what I
>> would consider to be extensive damage.
>>
>> As for out and out murders? Got numbers? Got numbers on *both*
>> sides?
>
> Of course, though, his real question is about the behavior of
> the media.
>
> When a riot damages the property of innocent people, of course
> the people living in the community will be angry at the rioters.
>
> I myself think that, in general, in principle, it is entirely
> right and proper for the police to use lethal force to prevent
> property damage.

But then, you're a psychopath.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:ojephh1l2u3tvi6pqoioa1d8u0mvt6blcm@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 00:28:06 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:qAHSK.90416
>>$elEa.3488@fx09.iad:
>>
>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>>In article <XnsAF0C9152CF814taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
>>>>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>Jan 6 was some hillbillies who had a party that got out of
>>>>>hand, and did very minimal damage to anybody.
>>>>
>>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>>Dead is "minimal damage"?
>>>
>>> Don't respond to Terry's trolling, please.
>>>
>>Especially on subjects where the facts make lefties look like
>>the insane, violent insurgents so many of them are.
>
> Project much?
>
> Trump does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
>
> And I want to thank the various Republicans telling us clearly
> that they are preparing more insurrectionary activity under the
> guise of warning us how upset their followers are.

Why wouldn't they? They feel duty bound to resist the coup that has
already taken place. It's their patriotic duty. Just ask them.

If you *act* like a junta staging a coup - and make no mistake, the
Democrats do, every fucking day - they people will assume that's
what you're doing.
>
> Here's hoping the FBI, Secret Service, and local law enforcement
> are up to the challenge!

The FBI is a joke, local law enforcement too small and varied to
make much of a difference, and the Secret Service works for the
junta.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.