Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #392061 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-11 12:43 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-14 03:58 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 416 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-11 12:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Normal Human <NH@....> - 2016-09-12 08:01 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-11 15:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-11 16:28 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-12 00:06 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 07:31 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-12 12:57 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 05:59 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 08:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:04 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-12 14:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 19:18 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 12:37 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 22:43 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-12 22:18 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 06:45 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 23:56 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 00:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 22:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 20:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 20:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 01:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 08:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 03:33 -0400
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-15 11:29 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 20:44 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-16 06:34 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 20:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-15 19:05 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 10:25 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 22:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:25 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 22:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-17 07:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 11:54 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 09:55 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 04:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 16:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 11:29 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 09:59 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 03:25 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-18 20:56 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:11 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 11:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 12:12 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 03:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 19:14 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 10:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 09:28 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-22 00:12 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 03:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 18:17 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 02:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 02:35 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 10:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 12:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-23 14:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 10:35 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 05:55 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 05:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 19:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 17:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 06:44 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-25 22:40 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-26 17:56 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 23:09 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-27 19:02 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 10:18 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 03:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 11:41 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 20:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 04:48 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-29 10:07 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-29 08:04 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:43 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-27 19:06 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-27 05:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-27 20:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 01:17 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 23:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 15:04 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-29 00:03 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-29 15:48 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 23:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 11:50 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-27 22:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 14:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:07 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-27 10:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:08 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 08:53 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 17:27 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-20 09:40 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 03:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 12:05 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 04:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 20:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 23:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 00:15 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 11:51 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:14 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 23:38 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 22:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-21 11:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 04:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 21:42 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 16:22 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 10:11 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 08:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-21 23:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 17:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 22:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 12:38 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 02:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 22:11 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-22 22:25 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 04:36 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 16:18 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 02:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:20 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 09:30 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:17 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-23 02:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 10:47 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-23 18:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-24 04:29 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 17:29 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-23 23:20 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-23 16:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-23 15:05 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:22 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-24 16:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 05:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 15:50 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 21:42 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-26 01:05 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-22 18:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-22 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 04:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 17:41 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 10:18 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 11:26 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 04:51 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 22:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 16:35 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:22 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 22:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 09:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-23 03:04 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 21:08 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-24 12:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-24 16:28 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 11:59 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-25 13:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-23 12:52 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 21:49 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-25 23:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 10:46 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 04:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 14:17 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 23:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-27 10:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 09:30 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-20 20:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 21:47 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-17 16:28 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 18:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 09:57 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 00:20 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 23:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 20:06 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 20:19 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 23:22 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 23:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 00:18 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 12:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 05:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-21 14:15 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 10:13 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 04:03 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-09-22 11:51 -0500
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-22 11:04 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 14:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 04:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 16:04 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 11:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 20:26 -0500
To A Atheism The Science Of Language Is Rrelativity "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-19 15:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 07:01 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 22:29 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 08:21 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 00:05 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 18:59 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 00:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-19 17:48 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 08:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 12:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-13 07:49 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 18:03 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 21:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 06:27 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 02:45 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 11:14 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 06:44 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 12:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 07:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 15:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 15:38 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 15:29 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 14:57 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-15 19:37 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-14 01:34 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 11:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 19:45 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 14:43 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 07:01 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 22:58 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 23:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 03:49 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 08:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 06:40 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-16 18:57 -0500
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:15 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:33 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:37 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:05 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 00:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 00:34 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:42 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-14 10:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-14 14:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-14 12:06 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 09:10 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-13 17:21 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 03:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-13 20:33 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:09 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 20:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 20:47 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-14 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-13 21:12 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 09:32 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-14 17:38 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:32 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-14 23:15 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 03:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 08:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 18:01 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 22:48 +0200
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-09-15 15:02 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-16 02:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-16 01:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-15 23:41 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-18 13:26 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-18 21:01 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 17:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 21:38 -0700
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-19 23:37 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 23:58 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 09:59 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 15:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 22:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 18:38 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 15:14 -0400
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-20 13:46 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 20:46 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-15 22:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 17:45 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-15 17:15 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 04:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 16:11 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 21:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 01:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 08:30 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-17 07:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 16:25 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:44 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-17 19:42 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 06:50 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 23:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 20:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 15:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-30 06:33 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-29 23:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 02:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 02:54 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-30 02:06 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-30 11:17 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-30 14:07 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 23:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-01 08:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-01 05:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 07:39 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-02 02:24 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 11:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-02 09:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 18:02 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-02 11:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 05:52 +0200
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-10-09 00:09 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Hello Thomas <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 07:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 07:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-10-08 12:36 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 22:56 +0200
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-10-08 15:33 -0600
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 05:42 +0200
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-10-09 00:14 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 12:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 17:26 +0000
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-17 11:48 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-17 12:54 -0500
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-17 12:47 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 20:50 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-18 00:41 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:36 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 12:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:25 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 00:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 22:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-18 06:35 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-18 07:49 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-18 06:35 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 03:46 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:53 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 08:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:43 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-20 01:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 08:21 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-20 20:04 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 04:56 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-22 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 05:03 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:42 +0000
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-23 23:17 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 17:25 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-24 22:06 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 00:36 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 05:18 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 13:56 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 16:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-25 11:04 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-26 09:59 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 07:35 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:27 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-27 06:10 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 12:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 21:42 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-26 01:14 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 00:39 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 14:07 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 13:09 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-18 00:50 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 20:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 17:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 02:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 03:47 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 05:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:12 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 16:22 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 19:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-14 03:58 -0400
Page 6 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 21 Next page →
| From | Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 16:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7q6oubdfrssbl5h3urlrqb9u04sus5efu5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #394076 |
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:50:55 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 28/09/2016 10:28, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:06:33 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/09/2016 14:43, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 26.09.2016 09:56, schrieb Alex W.:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm also quite certain, that the book 'Mein Kampf' is actually a
>>>>>>>> translation into German from an English original.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are insane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, maybe (but most likely not). It is irrelevant anyhow, since I can
>>>>>> prove, that 'My Struggle' (in English) was the original version, which
>>>>>> was only translated by Hess and Hitler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This would require to compare a piece of text from both versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can take actually any piece you like, but for reasons of convenience
>>>>>> I take a fragment, which I have used recently to show this effect in
>>>>>> another forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I take a piece of text from the English version and the same from the
>>>>>> German one and compare them for style, linguistic errors, content and so
>>>>>> forth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I'm German, my first language is German and I can - of course -
>>>>>> understand German quite well. My English is a little less, but should be
>>>>>> good enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your English is not good enough for this.
>>>>>
>>>> English is a second language for me. I can talk, read and write in
>>>> English quite fluently. But, as a matter of fact, that is still far
>>>> from being perfect.
>>>>
>>>> But if you complain about my English, than how is your second language?
>>>> Do you have one at all?
>>>
>>> I am bilingual in English and German.
>>> I am also fluent in French, and I have had 6 years of both Latin and Greek.
>>>
>>> I also have a university degree in history and languages.
>>>
>>> Enough for you?
>>>
>>
>> No. Never enough languages!
>>
>> You made me think of John Cleese in "A Fish Called Wanda"... and if
>> you don't get the reference, well hie thee to the internets and fetch
>> said movie pronto.
>
>I do know -- and love -- said film.
>
>Oddly, I have tried Cleese's technique on my SO, without any result
>other than confused looks.
>
>She requires other approaches....
>
>
>>
>> Latin... fuck me. Why? Other than understanding things like "post hoc
>> ergo propter hoc", was it actually a choice?
>
>It was not a choice at the time.
>I have, however, come to greatly appreciate it. Latin is an excellent
>basis for learning all sorts of languages, not least all the Romance
>tongues.
>
>
>>
>> Greek... well come on. Everyone should know Greek if only for the
>> increased understanding of all the big words in English, like
>> onomatopoeia. Plus, "ai pithixou" is so much more poetic as "Go jump
>> yourself" than the colloquial "go fuck yourself", non?
>
>A phrase with which current German tourists to Greece will be all too
>familiar...
>:-)
>
>
>>
>> French is a messed up language. Beautiful, but messed up.
>
>Their spelling is way more haphazard than English...
>
>
>>
>> I want to learn Spanish; I sadly didn't take the opportunity to do so
>> while I lived in Texas, but it's just such a great sounding language
>> that it's still on my bucket list. And Mandarin! Because it might be
>> nice to understand how we're being slagged.
>
>Aesthetically, I prefer Portuguese or Italian to Spanish, but each to
>his own. I am also wary of the significant differences between the
>different versions of Spanish: my Castilian sister-in-law, for example,
>found it almost impossible to understand my Colombian cleaner ... even
>thought they both spoke Spanish (nominally).
>
>As for the Chinese, Mandarin is only *one* of their languages. Learn
>Mandarin, and you may find yourself being slagged off in Cantonese or
>Hakka....
>
>
>>
>> I'm fluent in at least fifteen languages; however, I don't use them in
>> polite company. They require either the use of an interpreter or a
>> compiler.... <cue nerd groans>
>>
>
>So you're claiming you can order a beer in Python and tell someone to go
>perform anatomically impossible congress with themselves in C++?
>
>Impressive.
Hardly impressive:
Python:
print "I'd like a beer, please!"
C++:
#include <string>
std::string insults[5];
int i,j;
insults[0] = "Fuck you";
insults[1] = "jódete";
insults[2] = "fick dich";
insults[3] = "vilis";
insults[4] = "foda-se";
i=0;
while (i==0)
{
j = 0;
while (j <=4)
{
printf(insults[j]);
j++;
}
}
Come on. Seriously. These are things you can do in the first five
minutes of programming class.
--
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have
perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."
Epicurus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57EAA743.E00@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #393825 |
Alex W. wrote:
>
> On 26/09/2016 14:44, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 25.09.2016 23:16, schrieb Attila <:
> >
>
> >>>
> >>> I'm also quite certain, that the book 'Mein Kampf' is actually a
> >>> translation into German from an English original.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> TH
> >>
> >> You are insane.
> >
> > Well, maybe (but most likely not). It is irrelevant anyhow, since I can
> > prove, that 'My Struggle' (in English) was the original version, which
> > was only translated by Hess and Hitler.
> >
> > This would require to compare a piece of text from both versions.
> >
> > You can take actually any piece you like, but for reasons of convenience
> > I take a fragment, which I have used recently to show this effect in
> > another forum.
> >
> > So I take a piece of text from the English version and the same from the
> > German one and compare them for style, linguistic errors, content and so
> > forth.
> >
> > Since I'm German, my first language is German and I can - of course -
> > understand German quite well. My English is a little less, but should be
> > good enough.
>
> Your English is not good enough for this.
>
> >
> >
> > The German version is rather twisted and almost impossible to
> > understand, while the English version is very clear, easy to understand
> > and much better written.
>
> Which is also true of the work of Thomas Mann and many other
> German-language writers.
>
> >
> > English version
> >
> > "The Revolution of 1848 was perhaps a struggle of classes everywhere,
> > but in Austria it was the commencement of a fresh struggle of
> > nationalities.
> >
> > But the German, either forgetting or not realizing that origin, placed
> > himself at the service of the revolutionary movement, and he sealed his
> > own fate by so doing. He played his part in arousing the spirit of world
> > democracy, which in a short time robbed him of the principles underlying
> > his own existence.
> >
> > The formation of a representative parliamentary body, without previous
> > establishment of the principle of a common State language, laid the
> > foundation stone of the end of the predominance of the German race. And
> > from that moment the State itself was bound for destruction. What then
> > followed was the historical evolution of an Empire."
> >
> >
> > German version
> >
> > "Die Revolution des Jahres 1848 konnte überall Klassenkampf sein, in
> > Österreich jedoch war sie schon der Beginn eines neuen Rassenstreites.
> >
> > Indem damals der Deutsche, diesen Ursprung vergessend oder nicht
> > erkennend, sich in den Dienst der revolutionären Erhebung stellte,
> > besiegelte er damit sein eigenes Los. Er half mit, den Geist der
> > westlichen Demokratie zu erwecken, der in kurzer Zeit ihm die Grundlagen
> > der eigenen Existenz entzog.
> >
> > Mit der Bildung eines parlamentarischen Vertretungskörpers ohne die
> > vorhergehende Niederlegung und Festigung einer gemeinsamen Staatssprache
> > war der Grundstein zum Ende der Vorherrschaft des Deutschtums in der
> > Monarchie gelegt worden. Von diesem Augenblick an war damit aber auch
> > der Staat selber verloren. Alles, was nun noch folgte, war nur die
> > historische Abwicklung eines Reiches."
> >
> >
> > We have a very funny error in the German version.
> >
> > The text is about the Austrian Empire. In the German language the
> > citizens of Austria are called 'Österreicher' (Austrians).
> >
> > 'Deutscher' (German) means 'citizen of Germany' only. But meant in the
> > English version is 'Speaker of the German language'.
> >
> > But the German language has no word for 'Speaker of the German
> > language', since obviously 'Speaker of the German language' would
> > address the speaker himself.
>
> "Der deutschsprachige".
>
> >
> > 'Deutscher' does not mean 'person speaking German', but being citizen of
> > Germany. This is funny, since the book talks about Austria. Austrian
> > citizens are called 'Österreicher'.
>
> Remember the Anschluss? Hitler never really accepted the
> differentiation between German and Austrian -- culturally,
> linguistically, or politically. He always had visions of a
> Grossdeutschland, and this is clearly reflected in his language. This
> is why the first bit of German-speaking Europe to be gobbled up and
> brought "heim ins Reich" was Austria....
>
> >
> > This is similar to 'English', which is also a language and a
> > nationality. So a Canadian would not say 'English' about himself, but
> > 'Canadian', even if he speaks English.
>
> But until very recently indeed, it was quite common for a Briton to use
> "England" and "English" when referring to the whole of the United
> Kingdom. In fact, this long-standing habit of conflating England and
> Britain is at the root of our current national confusion and search for
> a specific English identity distinct from the British one.
>
> >
> > The German version confuses the relation between nation and language
> > even more, since it introduces the term 'race' in connection to
> > 'German'. (the English version uses 'nationalities')
> >
> > The German version is plain nonsense, since you cannot find out, who has
> > done what.
> >
> > So German citizens cannot understand, how they had a role in the
> > internal struggles between nationalities in the KuK Empire or how this
> > sealed their fate.
> >
> > Even stranger is the assumed mechanism, which would be so fatal for 'the
> > German'.
> >
> > The German version says:
> >
> > ' he helped to awaken the spirit of western democracy, who robbed within
> > a short period the foundations of his own existence'.
> >
> > This not only terrible German, but it is also hard to understand, who
> > had robbed what (the spirit his own foundations???).
> >
> >
> > Next: We find a typical English construct in the German version (where
> > it makes no sense).
> >
> > In English you use singular case, if you want to address people. You say
> > 'The English', 'The German', 'The Canadian', if you want to address 'sum
> > of all the people of England/Germany/Canada'.
> >
> > But in German you always use the plural form. This is mandatory, since
> > the singular 'der Engländer' (for instance) means 'one specific person
> > from England'. ('Der' is the specific, singular male form of an article
> > in German. So 'der' would address only one male.)
>
> Which is rubbish.
>
> "Der Engländer trinkt gerne Tee" is a perfectly acceptable and correct
> use of German to indicate that English people like to drink tea. In
> fact, you could not construct this sentence in English using the singular.
>
> Apparently, not only is your English not good enough, but neither is
> your German...
>
> >
> > So 'Der Deutsche' does NOT mean 'all speakers of German' or 'all
> > citizens of Germany', but 'one single specific citizen of Germany'.
> >
> > This does not include citizens of Austria, since Austrians are called
> > 'Österreicher' in German.
>
> .... unless, as I pointed out above, one happens to be a believer in the
> political theory of "Grossdeutschland", for whom there is no such
> distinction between a German national, an Austrian, a Volga German with
> a Russian passport, or a Siebenbürger German with a Rumanian passport.
> To them, they are all "German". The believer in Grossdeutschland is not
> really concerned with nationalities, and far more with the German "race"
> ... which may be spread out over many different nations.
Do you like the TV show Hogan's Heros?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 16:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e49dnoF296U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392875 |
On 19/09/2016 11:25, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 19.09.2016 01:59, schrieb Alex W.: >>> >>> Since in a collective crime, where there is more than one participant, >>> all members of the group of people that took part are also guilty. >>> >>> Since those bystanders had no justification to kill somebody, they are >>> actually murderers, even if the particular stone they have thrown did >>> not kill. >> >> If the law of the land deems it necessary to actively involve the >> community in the punishment of a crime, no participant is a murderer. >> >> To repeat myself: what is and is not murder is ALWAYS and EXCLUSIVELY >> dependent on the law. Nothing more, nothing less. > > No! > > It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an > execution. That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. > > And usual people may not take part, even if the state allows this. > > To demand participation makes matters worse, since it demands from > innocent people to commit a crime. To start with, it is a fair assumption that no-one is innocent. We all break the law. This makes "innocent" not only a term devoid of intrinsic meaning, but also a direct emotional appeal rather than a factual description that is part of a cogent argument. Moreover, we still all participate in the punishment of wrongdoers. In Western societies, the exercise of justice is delegated to the state but is always undertaken in the name of the people. You can go into any German court and you will never hear a criminal verdict read out that does not begin with the sentence "Im Namen des Volkes ergeht folgendes Urteil". The difference to communal participation is merely one of direct versus indirect action. > > In case the state (illegally) demands it, the participant acts against > certain ethical principles and is only committing a sin. Where a state which enjoys the legitimacy of public approval institutes such laws and procedures, they cannot be illegal. You may well regard them as immoral, but that is a different matter altogether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 08:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e49gcaFl3tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392910 |
Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.: >> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an >> execution. > > That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. > Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements. It is necessary to allow people to act legally. This is easier to achieve, if their moral judgements would not contradict the legal principles. Usually people are capable of moral judgements, since they act in the way like: ' what you do not want to be done with you, you do not do to others'. Another principle is what Kant called 'kathegorischer Imperativ'. this means roughly: an activity is justified, if you could (in principle) release a law, that demands doing this by everybody all the time. And theft - for instance - is illegal, because stealing by everybody all the time would create a state, where all the people have nothing. And killing is not allowed, because the equivalent law would leave no survivors. >> >> And usual people may not take part, even if the state allows this. >> >> To demand participation makes matters worse, since it demands from >> innocent people to commit a crime. > > To start with, it is a fair assumption that no-one is innocent. We all > break the law. > > This makes "innocent" not only a term devoid of intrinsic meaning, but > also a direct emotional appeal rather than a factual description that is > part of a cogent argument. If someone has not committed a crime, the person is innocent. The state creates laws, which make clear to the people, what is allowed and what is not. These laws should be clear, easy to understand and universally valid. And they should match the ethics and moral of the people and what they believe is right or wrong. This is so, because then less activities are criminal, since usual habits are also legal. Now the question is, what kind of crimes would require death penalty? In Germany we do not have such punishment at all. But in other nations we have crimes like murder, which are punished by death. Now we need to estimate, which degree of deviation from somehow accepted standards of behaviour would justify such a punishment. Certainly there are a lot of misconducts, we would not punish by death. But which would we punish this way? Most likely only those crimes, that are totally unforgivable and all others not. If now - besides murder - false parking is also punished by death, than something is wrong with the state and it's laws. That would actually be a 'state crime', since punishment and crime have no rational connection. In such a case, all participants are also criminals. > Moreover, we still all participate in the punishment of wrongdoers. In > Western societies, the exercise of justice is delegated to the state but > is always undertaken in the name of the people. You can go into any > German court and you will never hear a criminal verdict read out that > does not begin with the sentence "Im Namen des Volkes ergeht folgendes > Urteil". The difference to communal participation is merely one of > direct versus indirect action. > Well, laws and legal procedures are necessary. And judges speak in the name of the people. But judges do not commit unjustified violence against innocent people. It is their profession to bring justice. >> >> In case the state (illegally) demands it, the participant acts against >> certain ethical principles and is only committing a sin. > > Where a state which enjoys the legitimacy of public approval institutes > such laws and procedures, they cannot be illegal. You may well regard > them as immoral, but that is a different matter altogether. Actually I do not agree. I'm German and we had extensive problems with 'state sponsored terror' in Germany. This terror was in fact legal the sense of being allowed by law. But how will you judge - for instance - the destruction of Lidice? Do you really claim, that execution of hostages was legal, because the laws said so? So we cannot allow the state to allow terror. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 15:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <i3f0ublr4tl8pa90ncudat4dt4c5c5htff@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #392913 |
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 08:53:57 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in alt.atheism with message-id <e49gcaFl3tU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.: > >>> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an >>> execution. >> >> That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. >> >Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements. No. > >It is necessary to allow people to act legally. This is easier to >achieve, if their moral judgements would not contradict the legal >principles. > >Usually people are capable of moral judgements, since they act in the >way like: >' what you do not want to be done with you, you do not do to others'. > >Another principle is what Kant called 'kathegorischer Imperativ'. > >this means roughly: an activity is justified, if you could (in >principle) release a law, that demands doing this by everybody all the >time. > >And theft - for instance - is illegal, because stealing by everybody all >the time would create a state, where all the people have nothing. No, stealing has been shown to be detrimental to the health and welfare of the society. > >And killing is not allowed, because the equivalent law would leave no >survivors. Nope. Same reason. > >>> >>> And usual people may not take part, even if the state allows this. >>> >>> To demand participation makes matters worse, since it demands from >>> innocent people to commit a crime. >> >> To start with, it is a fair assumption that no-one is innocent. We all >> break the law. >> >> This makes "innocent" not only a term devoid of intrinsic meaning, but >> also a direct emotional appeal rather than a factual description that is >> part of a cogent argument. > >If someone has not committed a crime, the person is innocent. > >The state creates laws, which make clear to the people, what is allowed >and what is not. > >These laws should be clear, easy to understand and universally valid. > >And they should match the ethics and moral of the people and what they >believe is right or wrong. > >This is so, because then less activities are criminal, since usual >habits are also legal. That would depend on those 'usual habits'. > >Now the question is, what kind of crimes would require death penalty? > >In Germany we do not have such punishment at all. > >But in other nations we have crimes like murder, which are punished by >death. > >Now we need to estimate, which degree of deviation from somehow accepted >standards of behaviour would justify such a punishment. > >Certainly there are a lot of misconducts, we would not punish by death. >But which would we punish this way? > >Most likely only those crimes, that are totally unforgivable and all >others not. > >If now - besides murder - false parking is also punished by death, than >something is wrong with the state and it's laws. Nonsense. Illegal parking should be an executable offense. Also the playing of loud music. > >That would actually be a 'state crime', since punishment and crime have >no rational connection. In such a case, all participants are also criminals. Anyone who breaks a law is a criminal. > >> Moreover, we still all participate in the punishment of wrongdoers. In >> Western societies, the exercise of justice is delegated to the state but >> is always undertaken in the name of the people. You can go into any >> German court and you will never hear a criminal verdict read out that >> does not begin with the sentence "Im Namen des Volkes ergeht folgendes >> Urteil". The difference to communal participation is merely one of >> direct versus indirect action. >> > >Well, laws and legal procedures are necessary. And judges speak in the >name of the people. > >But judges do not commit unjustified violence against innocent people. >It is their profession to bring justice. > >>> >>> In case the state (illegally) demands it, the participant acts against >>> certain ethical principles and is only committing a sin. >> >> Where a state which enjoys the legitimacy of public approval institutes >> such laws and procedures, they cannot be illegal. You may well regard >> them as immoral, but that is a different matter altogether. > >Actually I do not agree. > >I'm German and we had extensive problems with 'state sponsored terror' >in Germany. > >This terror was in fact legal the sense of being allowed by law. > >But how will you judge - for instance - the destruction of Lidice? > >Do you really claim, that execution of hostages was legal, because the >laws said so? If the law said so, it is legal. That is how legal is defined. > >So we cannot allow the state to allow terror. > > >TH -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 17:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4c6n2FkkjbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392993 |
On 20/09/2016 05:36, Attila wrote: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 08:53:57 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in > alt.atheism with message-id <e49gcaFl3tU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: > >> Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.: >> >>>> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an >>>> execution. >>> >>> That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. >>> >> Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements. > > No. Hmm ... -ish, I'd say. Yes, but no. Kinda. Laws should represent the *best* moral judgment of a society -- which is not the same as the current moral consensus. But of course, they do not, and cannot. The best they can realistically be is a snapshot, a moral perspective which may or may not stand the test of time. > >> >> It is necessary to allow people to act legally. This is easier to >> achieve, if their moral judgements would not contradict the legal >> principles. >> >> Usually people are capable of moral judgements, since they act in the >> way like: >> ' what you do not want to be done with you, you do not do to others'. >> >> Another principle is what Kant called 'kathegorischer Imperativ'. >> >> this means roughly: an activity is justified, if you could (in >> principle) release a law, that demands doing this by everybody all the >> time. >> >> And theft - for instance - is illegal, because stealing by everybody all >> the time would create a state, where all the people have nothing. > > No, stealing has been shown to be detrimental to the health and > welfare of the society. Theft, like murder, is a legal concept. If a state makes it legal to steal for certain reasons, it is no longer theft. > >> >> That would actually be a 'state crime', since punishment and crime have >> no rational connection. In such a case, all participants are also criminals. > > Anyone who breaks a law is a criminal. See my answer elsewhere in this thread: we are all criminals. In this day and age, it is quite impossible to avoid breaking the law just about on a daily basis. Most people, for example, will quite happily fiddle their income tax return: claim a taxi ride or a dinner as a deductible business expense, maybe, or file as head of household rather than jointly with the spouse. No problem .. except tax fraud is a felony.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 10:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a2i2ubdj6gm5ijstf261s1ofdtac9b851s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393065 |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:27:24 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in alt.atheism with message-id <e4c6n2FkkjbU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >On 20/09/2016 05:36, Attila wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 08:53:57 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in >> alt.atheism with message-id <e49gcaFl3tU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >> >>> Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.: >>> >>>>> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an >>>>> execution. >>>> >>>> That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. >>>> >>> Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements. >> >> No. > >Hmm ... -ish, I'd say. >Yes, but no. >Kinda. > >Laws should represent the *best* moral judgment of a society -- which is >not the same as the current moral consensus. > >But of course, they do not, and cannot. > >The best they can realistically be is a snapshot, a moral perspective >which may or may not stand the test of time. Generally attempts to legislate morals end up as dismal failures. > > >> >>> >>> It is necessary to allow people to act legally. This is easier to >>> achieve, if their moral judgements would not contradict the legal >>> principles. >>> >>> Usually people are capable of moral judgements, since they act in the >>> way like: >>> ' what you do not want to be done with you, you do not do to others'. >>> >>> Another principle is what Kant called 'kathegorischer Imperativ'. >>> >>> this means roughly: an activity is justified, if you could (in >>> principle) release a law, that demands doing this by everybody all the >>> time. >>> >>> And theft - for instance - is illegal, because stealing by everybody all >>> the time would create a state, where all the people have nothing. >> >> No, stealing has been shown to be detrimental to the health and >> welfare of the society. > >Theft, like murder, is a legal concept. If a state makes it legal to >steal for certain reasons, it is no longer theft. Sure it is. But it is legal. > > >> >>> >>> That would actually be a 'state crime', since punishment and crime have >>> no rational connection. In such a case, all participants are also criminals. >> >> Anyone who breaks a law is a criminal. > >See my answer elsewhere in this thread: we are all criminals. In this >day and age, it is quite impossible to avoid breaking the law just about >on a daily basis. Most people, for example, will quite happily fiddle >their income tax return: claim a taxi ride or a dinner as a deductible >business expense, maybe, or file as head of household rather than >jointly with the spouse. No problem .. except tax fraud is a felony. > > -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 09:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bhi2ubdrhihks4vhsqeb373b8one4b47l3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393103 |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:33:15 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:27:24 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in >alt.atheism with message-id <e4c6n2FkkjbU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: > >>On 20/09/2016 05:36, Attila wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 08:53:57 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in >>> alt.atheism with message-id <e49gcaFl3tU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.: >>>> >>>>>> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an >>>>>> execution. >>>>> >>>>> That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. >>>>> >>>> Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements. >>> >>> No. >> >>Hmm ... -ish, I'd say. >>Yes, but no. >>Kinda. >> >>Laws should represent the *best* moral judgment of a society -- which is >>not the same as the current moral consensus. >> >>But of course, they do not, and cannot. >> >>The best they can realistically be is a snapshot, a moral perspective >>which may or may not stand the test of time. > >Generally attempts to legislate morals end up as dismal failures. Like the 18th amendment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 03:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9df4ubp3ubrvjp2l4o3as4efc4gva2131c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393106 |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:40:03 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <bhi2ubdrhihks4vhsqeb373b8one4b47l3@4ax.com> wrote: >On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:33:15 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> >wrote: > >>On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:27:24 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in >>alt.atheism with message-id <e4c6n2FkkjbU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >> >>>On 20/09/2016 05:36, Attila wrote: >>>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 08:53:57 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in >>>> alt.atheism with message-id <e49gcaFl3tU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.: >>>>> >>>>>>> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an >>>>>>> execution. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. >>>>>> >>>>> Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements. >>>> >>>> No. >>> >>>Hmm ... -ish, I'd say. >>>Yes, but no. >>>Kinda. >>> >>>Laws should represent the *best* moral judgment of a society -- which is >>>not the same as the current moral consensus. >>> >>>But of course, they do not, and cannot. >>> >>>The best they can realistically be is a snapshot, a moral perspective >>>which may or may not stand the test of time. >> >>Generally attempts to legislate morals end up as dismal failures. > >Like the 18th amendment. Exactly. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 12:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4e886F5h9sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393103 |
On 21/09/2016 00:33, Attila wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:27:24 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in > alt.atheism with message-id <e4c6n2FkkjbU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: > >> On 20/09/2016 05:36, Attila wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 08:53:57 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in >>> alt.atheism with message-id <e49gcaFl3tU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.: >>>> >>>>>> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an >>>>>> execution. >>>>> >>>>> That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. >>>>> >>>> Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements. >>> >>> No. >> >> Hmm ... -ish, I'd say. >> Yes, but no. >> Kinda. >> >> Laws should represent the *best* moral judgment of a society -- which is >> not the same as the current moral consensus. >> >> But of course, they do not, and cannot. >> >> The best they can realistically be is a snapshot, a moral perspective >> which may or may not stand the test of time. > > Generally attempts to legislate morals end up as dismal failures. Minimum wages, the abolition of child labour, workplace protection laws, equality and anti-discrimination laws, decriminalisation of homosexuality and mixed-race marriages ... there is a long LONG list of legislation that is rooted in society's moral consensus and that, by and large, work rather well. > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> It is necessary to allow people to act legally. This is easier to >>>> achieve, if their moral judgements would not contradict the legal >>>> principles. >>>> >>>> Usually people are capable of moral judgements, since they act in the >>>> way like: >>>> ' what you do not want to be done with you, you do not do to others'. >>>> >>>> Another principle is what Kant called 'kathegorischer Imperativ'. >>>> >>>> this means roughly: an activity is justified, if you could (in >>>> principle) release a law, that demands doing this by everybody all the >>>> time. >>>> >>>> And theft - for instance - is illegal, because stealing by everybody all >>>> the time would create a state, where all the people have nothing. >>> >>> No, stealing has been shown to be detrimental to the health and >>> welfare of the society. >> >> Theft, like murder, is a legal concept. If a state makes it legal to >> steal for certain reasons, it is no longer theft. > > Sure it is. But it is legal. No, it is not. Theft can only exist when it is so defined by a law proscribing it. In a social and moral context, it may still be regarded as such, but as a legal concept, the offence is defined and exists only by its legal status.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 04:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hef4ubhjjg6o66uggb118r51ied061rhp8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393163 |
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:05:55 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in alt.atheism with message-id <e4e886F5h9sU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >On 21/09/2016 00:33, Attila wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:27:24 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> in >> alt.atheism with message-id <e4c6n2FkkjbU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >> >>> On 20/09/2016 05:36, Attila wrote: >>>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 08:53:57 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in >>>> alt.atheism with message-id <e49gcaFl3tU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.: >>>>> >>>>>>> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in an >>>>>>> execution. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. >>>>>> >>>>> Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements. >>>> >>>> No. >>> >>> Hmm ... -ish, I'd say. >>> Yes, but no. >>> Kinda. >>> >>> Laws should represent the *best* moral judgment of a society -- which is >>> not the same as the current moral consensus. >>> >>> But of course, they do not, and cannot. >>> >>> The best they can realistically be is a snapshot, a moral perspective >>> which may or may not stand the test of time. >> >> Generally attempts to legislate morals end up as dismal failures. > >Minimum wages, the abolition of child labour, workplace protection laws, >equality and anti-discrimination laws, decriminalisation of >homosexuality and mixed-race marriages ... there is a long LONG list of >legislation that is rooted in society's moral consensus and that, by and >large, work rather well. Those are not moral points - many of them are simply good business and result in a better workplace and a healthier society. Some of them are attempts to legislate a social agenda and time alone will tell how successful they are. > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is necessary to allow people to act legally. This is easier to >>>>> achieve, if their moral judgements would not contradict the legal >>>>> principles. >>>>> >>>>> Usually people are capable of moral judgements, since they act in the >>>>> way like: >>>>> ' what you do not want to be done with you, you do not do to others'. >>>>> >>>>> Another principle is what Kant called 'kathegorischer Imperativ'. >>>>> >>>>> this means roughly: an activity is justified, if you could (in >>>>> principle) release a law, that demands doing this by everybody all the >>>>> time. >>>>> >>>>> And theft - for instance - is illegal, because stealing by everybody all >>>>> the time would create a state, where all the people have nothing. >>>> >>>> No, stealing has been shown to be detrimental to the health and >>>> welfare of the society. >>> >>> Theft, like murder, is a legal concept. If a state makes it legal to >>> steal for certain reasons, it is no longer theft. >> >> Sure it is. But it is legal. > >No, it is not. Theft can only exist when it is so defined by a law >proscribing it. In a social and moral context, it may still be regarded >as such, but as a legal concept, the offence is defined and exists only >by its legal status. > > Theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. If such an action is made legal it is no longer illegal. Almost everybody who refers to "moral" means "what I think that you should do". Legal is all that matters and is all that is enforceable. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 20:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrphuv$idd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392913 |
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 08:53:57 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 19.09.2016 08:08, schrieb Alex W.: > >>> It would be 'state crime', if you allow usual people to take part in >>> an execution. >> >> That is a moral judgment, not a legal one. >> > Yes. Somehow should laws represent moral judgements. > > It is necessary to allow people to act legally. This is easier to > achieve, if their moral judgements would not contradict the legal > principles. > > Usually people are capable of moral judgements, since they act in the > way like: > ' what you do not want to be done with you, you do not do to others'. > > Another principle is what Kant called 'kathegorischer Imperativ'. > > this means roughly: an activity is justified, if you could (in > principle) release a law, that demands doing this by everybody all the > time. > > And theft - for instance - is illegal, because stealing by everybody all > the time would create a state, where all the people have nothing. > > And killing is not allowed, because the equivalent law would leave no > survivors. > >>> And usual people may not take part, even if the state allows this. >>> >>> To demand participation makes matters worse, since it demands from >>> innocent people to commit a crime. >> >> To start with, it is a fair assumption that no-one is innocent. We all >> break the law. >> >> This makes "innocent" not only a term devoid of intrinsic meaning, but >> also a direct emotional appeal rather than a factual description that >> is part of a cogent argument. > > If someone has not committed a crime, the person is innocent. You've never been on a jury, have you? All a court can do is find someone 'not guilty'. That doesn't mean that they are innocent, just that there is insufficient evidence to find them guilty. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 23:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4b2prFcvs0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392997 |
Am 19.09.2016 22:31, schrieb Smiler: >>> To start with, it is a fair assumption that no-one is innocent. We all >>> break the law. Possibly.. But in a courts decision about the crime of a a specific convict, this does not matter (what 'we all' do). This would also mean, that not innocence in general is required, but being not guilty of the crime in question. >>> This makes "innocent" not only a term devoid of intrinsic meaning, but >>> also a direct emotional appeal rather than a factual description that >>> is part of a cogent argument. >> >> If someone has not committed a crime, the person is innocent. > > You've never been on a jury, have you? No. The German system has a somehow similar institutions as a jury. That is called 'Schöffe'. They have them in the larger courts and people could be asked to be that. But I have never been 'Schöffe'. But they do not decide whether or not someone is guilty. They are kind of 'deputies' and assist in the trail, but cannot decide anything. I could not become a member of a jury, because we don't have juries in Germany. In Germany the judge is the one, who decides. He is bound to the law and to that alone. We do not have an equivalent to the idiotic 'common law' system. 'Common law' means, that court decisions bind further decisions by other courts. In Germany the court is bound to the laws and period. If someone would not accept a certain decision, he can try 'Revision' or 'Berufung' on the courts at higher levels. Those can revoke decisions of courts at lower levels. > All a court can do is find someone 'not guilty'. I do not really understand the US system of jurisdiction. To me is sound right-out silly and US people would be well advised, if they give this piece of crap a huge kick and create something new. > That doesn't mean that they are innocent, just that there is insufficient > evidence to find them guilty. > A court decision is actually a decision. And if the judge decides, that and about what a convict is guilty, than he is. Such decision should be made with care and by honourable, well educated professionals. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrpv3t$120r$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393000 |
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:14:29 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 19.09.2016 22:31, schrieb Smiler: > >>>> To start with, it is a fair assumption that no-one is innocent. We >>>> all break the law. > > Possibly.. > > But in a courts decision about the crime of a a specific convict, this > does not matter (what 'we all' do). > > This would also mean, that not innocence in general is required, but > being not guilty of the crime in question. Correct. No court ever makes the decision of 'innocent', only 'not guilty'. >>>> This makes "innocent" not only a term devoid of intrinsic meaning, >>>> but also a direct emotional appeal rather than a factual description >>>> that is part of a cogent argument. >>> >>> If someone has not committed a crime, the person is innocent. >> >> You've never been on a jury, have you? > > No. The German system has a somehow similar institutions as a jury. That > is called 'Schöffe'. They have them in the larger courts and people > could be asked to be that. But I have never been 'Schöffe'. > > But they do not decide whether or not someone is guilty. They are kind > of 'deputies' and assist in the trail, but cannot decide anything. > > I could not become a member of a jury, because we don't have juries in > Germany. > > In Germany the judge is the one, who decides. He is bound to the law and > to that alone. > > We do not have an equivalent to the idiotic 'common law' system. > > 'Common law' means, that court decisions bind further decisions by other > courts. > > In Germany the court is bound to the laws and period. > > If someone would not accept a certain decision, he can try 'Revision' or > 'Berufung' on the courts at higher levels. Those can revoke decisions of > courts at lower levels. That is known as an 'appeal court' here. >> All a court can do is find someone 'not guilty'. > > I do not really understand the US system of jurisdiction. To me is sound > right-out silly and US people would be well advised, if they give this > piece of crap a huge kick and create something new. I'm not in the US, I'm in the UK. >> That doesn't mean that they are innocent, just that there is >> insufficient evidence to find them guilty. >> > A court decision is actually a decision. Thanks for that insight, Captain Obvious! > And if the judge decides, that > and about what a convict is guilty, than he is. > > Such decision should be made with care and by honourable, well educated > professionals. I would prefer to be tried by a jury of 12 of my peers, rather than a, possibly prejudiced, bumped up lawyer. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 11:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4bj0cFgesnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393000 |
On 20/09/2016 07:14, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 19.09.2016 22:31, schrieb Smiler: > >>>> To start with, it is a fair assumption that no-one is innocent. We all >>>> break the law. > > Possibly.. > > But in a courts decision about the crime of a a specific convict, this > does not matter (what 'we all' do). > > This would also mean, that not innocence in general is required, but > being not guilty of the crime in question. Formally and strictly speaking, that is correct. But the use of the term is highly tendentious. > > >>>> This makes "innocent" not only a term devoid of intrinsic meaning, but >>>> also a direct emotional appeal rather than a factual description that >>>> is part of a cogent argument. >>> >>> If someone has not committed a crime, the person is innocent. >> >> You've never been on a jury, have you? > > No. The German system has a somehow similar institutions as a jury. That > is called 'Schöffe'. They have them in the larger courts and people > could be asked to be that. But I have never been 'Schöffe'. You are mixing up your terms. A "Schöffe" is a lay judge, not a member of a jury. The correct translation is "Geschworener", and the corollary of a "Geschworenengericht". This type of court has been phased out in Switzerland in the past few years and is still in use in Austria, but has not been in use in Germany since 1924. > > > But they do not decide whether or not someone is guilty. They are kind > of 'deputies' and assist in the trail, but cannot decide anything. See above. A Schöffe is a judge, and fully participates in the trial right up to determining a verdict and the punishment. > > I could not become a member of a jury, because we don't have juries in > Germany. > > In Germany the judge is the one, who decides. He is bound to the law and > to that alone. > > We do not have an equivalent to the idiotic 'common law' system. > > 'Common law' means, that court decisions bind further decisions by other > courts. > > In Germany the court is bound to the laws and period. Not quite correct: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Präzedenzfall
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 23:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k9a1ub57lb5fu3qscns3rl4t91ehm3jbls@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393000 |
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:14:29 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in alt.atheism with message-id <e4b2prFcvs0U1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >Am 19.09.2016 22:31, schrieb Smiler: > >>>> To start with, it is a fair assumption that no-one is innocent. We all >>>> break the law. > >Possibly.. > >But in a courts decision about the crime of a a specific convict, this >does not matter (what 'we all' do). > >This would also mean, that not innocence in general is required, but >being not guilty of the crime in question. > > >>>> This makes "innocent" not only a term devoid of intrinsic meaning, but >>>> also a direct emotional appeal rather than a factual description that >>>> is part of a cogent argument. >>> >>> If someone has not committed a crime, the person is innocent. >> >> You've never been on a jury, have you? > >No. The German system has a somehow similar institutions as a jury. That >is called 'Schöffe'. They have them in the larger courts and people >could be asked to be that. But I have never been 'Schöffe'. > > >But they do not decide whether or not someone is guilty. They are kind >of 'deputies' and assist in the trail, but cannot decide anything. > >I could not become a member of a jury, because we don't have juries in >Germany. > >In Germany the judge is the one, who decides. He is bound to the law and >to that alone. > >We do not have an equivalent to the idiotic 'common law' system. > >'Common law' means, that court decisions bind further decisions by other >courts. > >In Germany the court is bound to the laws and period. > >If someone would not accept a certain decision, he can try 'Revision' or >'Berufung' on the courts at higher levels. Those can revoke decisions of >courts at lower levels. > >> All a court can do is find someone 'not guilty'. > >I do not really understand the US system of jurisdiction. To me is sound >right-out silly and US people would be well advised, if they give this >piece of crap a huge kick and create something new. That will never happen. > > >> That doesn't mean that they are innocent, just that there is insufficient >> evidence to find them guilty. >> >A court decision is actually a decision. And if the judge decides, that >and about what a convict is guilty, than he is. > >Such decision should be made with care and by honourable, well educated >professionals. > > >TH Right. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 23:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4dohuF27ooU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393044 |
Am 20.09.2016 05:14, schrieb Attila <: >> I do not really understand the US system of jurisdiction. To me is sound >> right-out silly and US people would be well advised, if they give this >> piece of crap a huge kick and create something new. > > That will never happen. The US legal system is SOOO silly! And I don't think, this will last forever. The system has several severe disadvantages. At first: it is way to expensive. Usa has too many lawyers, who earn too much, too many people in prison, and so forth. So the system is VERY expensive. I would suggest, the people should do other things with their money, rather than paying lawyers and prisons. Second: law are not universally valid in space and time. This means, that in a tiny town in Iowa is something illegal, what is allowed ten miles north, but not on Mondays and not for males under 25. This come from the weird US constitution, where the USA is not really a nation, but more a collection of semi-independent states. So people do not really know, what is allowed and what is not. Third: the laws themselves use an 'incremental system'. So it is actually difficult to find out, what a certain law contains, because the changes are published, instead of the changed law, in its latest version. Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws. This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not deputies in a parliament. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 22:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57E21B4D.7DBB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #393149 |
Thomas Heger wrote: i don't know what country Jewish people originated from... but the majority of people circumcised are from Africa.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57E2CC79.296@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #393177 |
Serigo wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > i don't know what country Jewish people originated from... > > but the majority of people circumcised are from Africa. > > > > how do you know that ? http://waitbutwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Circumcision-FEATURE.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_by_Country.svg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 04:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <g3g4ublvomo5m7eujun909t70nack397k3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393149 |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:38:00 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in alt.atheism with message-id <e4dohuF27ooU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >Am 20.09.2016 05:14, schrieb Attila <: > >>> I do not really understand the US system of jurisdiction. To me is sound >>> right-out silly and US people would be well advised, if they give this >>> piece of crap a huge kick and create something new. >> >> That will never happen. > > >The US legal system is SOOO silly! It works well enough for us. > >And I don't think, this will last forever. Over 200 years and counting. It has also spread quite a bit. > >The system has several severe disadvantages. Yep. > >At first: it is way to expensive. > >Usa has too many lawyers, who earn too much, too many people in prison, >and so forth. All true. > >So the system is VERY expensive. > >I would suggest, the people should do other things with their money, >rather than paying lawyers and prisons. Such as what? > >Second: law are not universally valid in space and time. > >This means, that in a tiny town in Iowa is something illegal, what is >allowed ten miles north, but not on Mondays and not for males under 25. > >This come from the weird US constitution, where the USA is not really a >nation, but more a collection of semi-independent states. A war decided that about 150 years ago. > >So people do not really know, what is allowed and what is not. Sure we do. > >Third: the laws themselves use an 'incremental system'. > >So it is actually difficult to find out, what a certain law contains, >because the changes are published, instead of the changed law, in its >latest version. That is the version that is enforced. > >Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws. > >This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not deputies >in a parliament. > >TH We have no parliament. Judges are a part of the Judicial branch of the government. Our system is a representative republic, not a democracy. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web