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 7 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 21 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 21:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4g65oFjpgpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393190 |
Am 21.09.2016 10:16, schrieb Attila <: >> Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws. >> > >> >This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not deputies >> >in a parliament. >> > > We have no parliament. Judges are a part of the Judicial branch of > the government. > > Our system is a representative republic, not a democracy. Usually the administration of the nation is divided into three branches: - legislation - jurisdiction - executive branch The government is the head of the executive branch. This is usually called Prime minister and ministers. The laws are made by the legislative branch, which is the actual law giver. This is composed from the elected representative. Their congregation is usually called 'Parliament' or something equivalent. The branch, that applies these laws is jurisdiction. But they do not make laws, because they are not elected. This is more or less the system of democracies and republics. But the US system seem to be quite different and does not fall in any known category. So who actually makes the laws in the USA, if there is no parliament? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 16:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cpq5ubpvnc9s2j0nm5q60q7care7ekaahr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393249 |
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:42:40 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in alt.atheism with message-id <e4g65oFjpgpU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >Am 21.09.2016 10:16, schrieb Attila <: >>> Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws. >>> > >>> >This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not deputies >>> >in a parliament. >>> > > >> We have no parliament. Judges are a part of the Judicial branch of >> the government. >> >> Our system is a representative republic, not a democracy. > >Usually the administration of the nation is divided into three branches: >- legislation >- jurisdiction >- executive branch > >The government is the head of the executive branch. This is usually >called Prime minister and ministers. In the US the three branches make up the government. The Executive Branch is the President. > >The laws are made by the legislative branch, which is the actual law >giver. This is composed from the elected representative. Their >congregation is usually called 'Parliament' or something equivalent. That is our Congress. > >The branch, that applies these laws is jurisdiction. But they do not >make laws, because they are not elected. That is our Judicial Branch. It interprets laws. Some Judges are elected and some are appointed. > >This is more or less the system of democracies and republics. > >But the US system seem to be quite different and does not fall in any >known category. > >So who actually makes the laws in the USA, if there is no parliament? The members of Congress. > >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 | 2016-09-22 10:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4glt0Fnb5oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393249 |
On 22/09/2016 05:42, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 21.09.2016 10:16, schrieb Attila <: >>> Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws. >>> > >>> >This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not deputies >>> >in a parliament. >>> > > >> We have no parliament. Judges are a part of the Judicial branch of >> the government. >> >> Our system is a representative republic, not a democracy. > > Usually the administration of the nation is divided into three branches: > - legislation > - jurisdiction > - executive branch > > The government is the head of the executive branch. This is usually > called Prime minister and ministers. That would be a parliamentary democracy. The variant form as practised in France, on the other hand, is of a type known as presidential democracy. > > The laws are made by the legislative branch, which is the actual law > giver. This is composed from the elected representative. Their > congregation is usually called 'Parliament' or something equivalent. > > The branch, that applies these laws is jurisdiction. But they do not > make laws, because they are not elected. > > This is more or less the system of democracies and republics. Not quite. All democracies practise some form of separation of powers, but the extent to which the judicative branch influences the implementation of the law can and does differ. For that matter, the German constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) does deliver verdicts which have legislative force. Their judgments *override* the will of the parliament. > But the US system seem to be quite different and does not fall in any > known category. Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 08:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4hcbrFrutsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393272 |
Am 22.09.2016 02:11, schrieb Alex W.: >>>> Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws. >>>> > >>>> >This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not >>>> deputies >>>> >in a parliament. >>>> > >> >>> We have no parliament. Judges are a part of the Judicial branch of >>> the government. >>> >>> Our system is a representative republic, not a democracy. >> >> Usually the administration of the nation is divided into three branches: >> - legislation >> - jurisdiction >> - executive branch >> >> The government is the head of the executive branch. This is usually >> called Prime minister and ministers. > > That would be a parliamentary democracy. > > The variant form as practised in France, on the other hand, is of a type > known as presidential democracy. > > >> >> The laws are made by the legislative branch, which is the actual law >> giver. This is composed from the elected representative. Their >> congregation is usually called 'Parliament' or something equivalent. >> >> The branch, that applies these laws is jurisdiction. But they do not >> make laws, because they are not elected. >> >> This is more or less the system of democracies and republics. > > Not quite. > All democracies practise some form of separation of powers, but the > extent to which the judicative branch influences the implementation of > the law can and does differ. > > For that matter, the German constitutional court > (Bundesverfassungsgericht) does deliver verdicts which have legislative > force. Their judgments *override* the will of the parliament. Yes, that's true. But the force of this court is limited, since its sole subject is the protection of the constitution. In can in fact override any decision of the government, if this would violate the constitution. So not even the parliament and/or the government can do things, which the constitution does not allow. >> But the US system seem to be quite different and does not fall in any >> known category. > > Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as > opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. > As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. They have also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'. Now what of these features do you find in the USA??? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 23:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57E38076.4794@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #393296 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 22.09.2016 02:11, schrieb Alex W.: > > >>>> Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws. > >>>> > > >>>> >This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not > >>>> deputies > >>>> >in a parliament. > >>>> > > >> > >>> We have no parliament. Judges are a part of the Judicial branch of > >>> the government. > >>> > >>> Our system is a representative republic, not a democracy. > >> > >> Usually the administration of the nation is divided into three branches: > >> - legislation > >> - jurisdiction > >> - executive branch > >> > >> The government is the head of the executive branch. This is usually > >> called Prime minister and ministers. > > > > That would be a parliamentary democracy. > > > > The variant form as practised in France, on the other hand, is of a type > > known as presidential democracy. > > > > > >> > >> The laws are made by the legislative branch, which is the actual law > >> giver. This is composed from the elected representative. Their > >> congregation is usually called 'Parliament' or something equivalent. > >> > >> The branch, that applies these laws is jurisdiction. But they do not > >> make laws, because they are not elected. > >> > >> This is more or less the system of democracies and republics. > > > > Not quite. > > All democracies practise some form of separation of powers, but the > > extent to which the judicative branch influences the implementation of > > the law can and does differ. > > > > For that matter, the German constitutional court > > (Bundesverfassungsgericht) does deliver verdicts which have legislative > > force. Their judgments *override* the will of the parliament. > > Yes, that's true. > > But the force of this court is limited, since its sole subject is the > protection of the constitution. > > In can in fact override any decision of the government, if this would > violate the constitution. > > So not even the parliament and/or the government can do things, which > the constitution does not allow. > > >> But the US system seem to be quite different and does not fall in any > >> known category. > > > > Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as > > opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. > > > > As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. They have > also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. > The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'. > > Now what of these features do you find in the USA??? > > TH England has a Queen.. in the USA we have Movie Stars, the Stars are our Queens. The Stars are the royalty of the USA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 17:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4hg0uFsp4kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393296 |
On 22/09/2016 16:34, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 22.09.2016 02:11, schrieb Alex W.: > >>>>> Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws. >>>>> > >>>>> >This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not >>>>> deputies >>>>> >in a parliament. >>>>> > >>> >>>> We have no parliament. Judges are a part of the Judicial branch of >>>> the government. >>>> >>>> Our system is a representative republic, not a democracy. >>> >>> Usually the administration of the nation is divided into three branches: >>> - legislation >>> - jurisdiction >>> - executive branch >>> >>> The government is the head of the executive branch. This is usually >>> called Prime minister and ministers. >> >> That would be a parliamentary democracy. >> >> The variant form as practised in France, on the other hand, is of a type >> known as presidential democracy. >> >> >>> >>> The laws are made by the legislative branch, which is the actual law >>> giver. This is composed from the elected representative. Their >>> congregation is usually called 'Parliament' or something equivalent. >>> >>> The branch, that applies these laws is jurisdiction. But they do not >>> make laws, because they are not elected. >>> >>> This is more or less the system of democracies and republics. >> >> Not quite. >> All democracies practise some form of separation of powers, but the >> extent to which the judicative branch influences the implementation of >> the law can and does differ. >> >> For that matter, the German constitutional court >> (Bundesverfassungsgericht) does deliver verdicts which have legislative >> force. Their judgments *override* the will of the parliament. > > Yes, that's true. > > But the force of this court is limited, since its sole subject is the > protection of the constitution. > > In can in fact override any decision of the government, if this would > violate the constitution. > > So not even the parliament and/or the government can do things, which > the constitution does not allow. Theoretically. In practice, the court chooses which cases to hear and which issues to deal with. So if the court, for whatever reason, decides not to take on a specific case, then the government is free to do whatever they want in this matter, whether it is constitutional or not. > >>> But the US system seem to be quite different and does not fall in any >>> known category. >> >> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >> > > As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. They have > also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. > The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'. Have you watched too much costume drama? What century do you live in? We do have a queen. Her formal role is even more restricted than that of the German president (although, due to her very long tenure, she has rather more private influence than Gauck). The guilds do still exist, but they are quite irrelevant in modern life. They operate like any other trade association and have no formal powers ... unlike in Germany, where an Innung has quite considerable influence over its trade and profession. In other words, the British carpenters' guild (if such a thing actual exists, it does not for many professions) has no say whatsoever in who may or may not open and run a carpentry workshop -- but just you try to own and operate a Schreinerwerkstatt in Germany without the proper approval and paperwork and Meistertitel. As for the allegedly parasitic life-form of the aristocracy, they have been politically neutered by the reforms of the House of Lords and economically eviscerated by high taxation and inheritance duties. Most British aristocrats live and work just like everyone else ... and those that still sit in their family castles and stately homes work twice as hard. When you have annual heating bills of several hundred thousand and when a new roof can easily set you back a million or so, there's not much left over for the playboy lifestyle...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 22:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4isurF93ifU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393301 |
Am 22.09.2016 09:37, schrieb Alex W.:
> On 22/09/2016 16:34, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 22.09.2016 02:11, schrieb Alex W.:
>>
>>>>>> Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not
>>>>>> deputies
>>>>>> >in a parliament.
>>>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>> We have no parliament. Judges are a part of the Judicial branch of
>>>>> the government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our system is a representative republic, not a democracy.
>>>>
>>>> Usually the administration of the nation is divided into three
>>>> branches:
>>>> - legislation
>>>> - jurisdiction
>>>> - executive branch
>>>>
>>>> The government is the head of the executive branch. This is usually
>>>> called Prime minister and ministers.
>>>
>>> That would be a parliamentary democracy.
>>>
>>> The variant form as practised in France, on the other hand, is of a type
>>> known as presidential democracy.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The laws are made by the legislative branch, which is the actual law
>>>> giver. This is composed from the elected representative. Their
>>>> congregation is usually called 'Parliament' or something equivalent.
>>>>
>>>> The branch, that applies these laws is jurisdiction. But they do not
>>>> make laws, because they are not elected.
>>>>
>>>> This is more or less the system of democracies and republics.
>>>
>>> Not quite.
>>> All democracies practise some form of separation of powers, but the
>>> extent to which the judicative branch influences the implementation of
>>> the law can and does differ.
>>>
>>> For that matter, the German constitutional court
>>> (Bundesverfassungsgericht) does deliver verdicts which have legislative
>>> force. Their judgments *override* the will of the parliament.
>>
>> Yes, that's true.
>>
>> But the force of this court is limited, since its sole subject is the
>> protection of the constitution.
>>
>> In can in fact override any decision of the government, if this would
>> violate the constitution.
>>
>> So not even the parliament and/or the government can do things, which
>> the constitution does not allow.
>
> Theoretically.
> In practice, the court chooses which cases to hear and which issues to
> deal with. So if the court, for whatever reason, decides not to take on
> a specific case, then the government is free to do whatever they want in
> this matter, whether it is constitutional or not.
>
>
>>
>>>> But the US system seem to be quite different and does not fall in any
>>>> known category.
>>>
>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as
>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system.
>>>
>>
>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. They have
>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy.
>> The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'.
>
> Have you watched too much costume drama?
Actually I have participated too long in the UseNet group 'alt.conspiracy'.
So I always try to figure out, who are the 'bad guys'.
My latest hypothesis: the 'Livery Companies' of the City of London (aka
'guilds').
> What century do you live in?
Depends on how you count.
>
> We do have a queen. Her formal role is even more restricted than that of
> the German president (although, due to her very long tenure, she has
> rather more private influence than Gauck).
Lets compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_order_of_precedence
"The German order of precedence is a symbolic hierarchy of officials in
the Government of Germany used to direct protocol. It has no official
status, but has been established in practical use.[1]
The Federal President (Bundespräsident)
The President of the Bundestag (Bundestagspräsident)
The Chancellor (Bundeskanzler)
The President of the Federal Council (Bundesratspräsident), also
acting as deputy to the President
The President of the Federal Constitutional Court (Präsident des
Bundesverfassungsgerichts)
"
(That's it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales
"Gentlemen
Royalty, archbishops, et al.
Royal Family
Precedence is accorded to spouses, children and grandchildren of the
reigning sovereign, as well as children and grandchildren of former
sovereigns.[nb 1]
The sovereign (regardless of gender)
The Queen
The Duke of Edinburgh (the sovereign's spouse)[nb 2]
The Prince of Wales (eldest son of the sovereign)
Younger sons of the sovereign
The Duke of York
The Earl of Wessex
Grandsons of the sovereign (ordered according to the rules of
primogeniture)
The Duke of Cambridge
Prince Henry of Wales
Viscount Severn
Peter Phillips
Brothers of the sovereign (none at present)[3]
Uncles of the sovereign (none at present)
Nephews of the sovereign
Viscount Linley
Grandsons of former sovereigns who are dukes[3]
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent
Grandsons of former sovereigns who are not dukes
Prince Michael of Kent
Archbishops, High Officers of State, et al.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (Justin Welby)
The Lord High Steward (none; ceremonial and only appointed for
coronations)
The Lord High Chancellor (office held by a woman, Elizabeth Truss MP)
The Archbishop of York (John Sentamu)
The Prime Minister[nb 3] (office held by a woman, Theresa May MP)
Commonwealth Prime Ministers (while visiting the UK, in order of
appointment)
The Lord High Treasurer (none; in commission since 1714)
The Lord President of the Council (David Lidington MP)
The Speaker of the House of Commons (John Bercow MP)
The Lord Speaker[nb 4] (The Lord Fowler)
The President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom[8] (Lord
Neuberger of Abbotsbury)
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales[9] (The Lord Thomas of
Cwmgiedd)
The Lord Privy Seal (office held by a woman, Baroness Evans of
Bowes Park)
Ambassadors and High Commissioners (in order of arrival)[nb 5]
The Lord High Constable of England (none; ceremonial and only
appointed for coronations)
Nobility, bishops, et al.
Dukes, et al.
Royal dukes not grandsons of former sovereigns (none at present)[3]
other Great Officers of State who are Dukes
The Earl Marshal (The Duke of Norfolk)
Dukes of England (ordered according to date of creation), excepting:
The Duke of Norfolk, who ranks higher as Earl Marshal
Dukes of Scotland (ordered according to date of creation)
Dukes of Great Britain (ordered according to date of creation)
Dukes of Ireland created before 1801 (The Duke of Leinster)
Non-royal Dukes of the United Kingdom and of Ireland created after
1801 (ordered according to date of creation)
Eldest sons of royal dukes (who are not already ranked higher)
Earl of Ulster (son of the Duke of Gloucester)
Earl of St Andrews (son of the Duke of Kent)
Prince George of Cambridge (son of the Duke of Cambridge)[nb 1]
Ministers, envoys, and other very important visitors from foreign
countries
Marquesses, et al.
other Great Officers of State who are Marquesses:
The Lord Great Chamberlain (The Marquess of Cholmondeley)
Marquesses of England (The Marquess of Winchester)
Marquesses of Scotland (ordered according to date of creation)
Marquesses of Great Britain (ordered according to date of creation)
Marquesses of Ireland created before 1801 (ordered according to
date of creation)
Marquesses of the United Kingdom and of Ireland created after 1801
(ordered according to date of creation), excepting:
The Marquess of Cholmondeley, who ranks higher as Lord Great
Chamberlain
Eldest sons of non-royal dukes (ordered according to the precedence
of the peerage holders)
Earls, et al.
The Lord Steward of the Household (The Earl of Dalhousie)[nb 6]
The Lord Chamberlain of the Household (The Earl Peel)[nb 6]
The Master of the Horse (The Lord Vestey)[nb 7]
Earls of England (ordered according to date of creation)
Earls of Scotland (ordered according to the Decreet of Ranking of
1606 and the date of creation), excepting:
The Earl of Dalhousie, who ranks higher as Lord Steward of the
Household
Earls of Great Britain (ordered according to date of creation)
Earls of Ireland created before 1801 (ordered according to date of
creation)
Earls of the United Kingdom and of Ireland created after 1801
(ordered according to date of creation), excepting:
The Earl of Wessex, who ranks higher as a member of the Royal
Family; and
The Earl Peel, who ranks higher as Lord Chamberlain of the
Household
Younger sons of royal dukes (who are not already ranked higher)
Lord Nicholas Windsor (son of the Duke of Kent)
Eldest sons of marquesses (ordered according to the precedence of
the peerage holders)
Younger sons of non-royal dukes (ordered according to the
precedence of the peerage holders)
Viscounts, et al.
Viscounts of England (The Viscount Hereford)
Viscounts of Scotland (ordered according to date of creation)
Viscounts of Great Britain (ordered according to date of creation)
Viscounts of Ireland created before 1801 (ordered according to date
of creation)
Viscounts of the United Kingdom and of Ireland created after 1801
(ordered according to date of creation)
Eldest sons of earls and of countesses in their own right (ordered
according to the precedence of the peerage holders), excepting:
Viscount Severn (son of the Earl of Wessex), who ranks higher
as a member of the Royal Family
Lord Frederick Windsor (only son of Prince Michael of Kent)[3]
Younger sons of marquesses (ordered according to the precedence of
the peerage holders)
Bishops
The Bishop of London (Richard Chartres)
The Bishop of Durham (Paul Butler)
The Bishop of Winchester (Tim Dakin)
Other Church of England diocesan bishops with seats in the House of
Lords (ordered according to seniority of confirmation of election)[nb 8]
14 other Church of England diocesan bishops (ordered according to
seniority of confirmation of election)
Suffragan bishops (ordered according to seniority of confirmation
of election)
Retired Church of England diocesan archbishops and bishops (ordered
according to original date of confirmation of election)
Barons
Secretaries of State being of the degree of a baron (none at present)
Barons of England (ordered according to date of creation)
Scottish Lords of Parliament (ordered according to date of creation)
Barons of Great Britain (ordered according to date of creation)
Barons of Ireland created before 1801 (ordered according to date of
creation)
Hereditary barons of the United Kingdom and of Ireland created
after 1801, and barons for life of the United Kingdom[nb 9] (ordered
according to date of creation[nb 10]), excepting:
Lord Fowler, who ranks higher as Lord Speaker;
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, who ranks higher as President of
the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom;
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who ranks higher as Lord Chief Justice;
Lord Vestey, who ranks higher as Master of the Horse;
Lord Carey of Clifton and Lord Williams of Oystermouth, who
rank higher as retired Archbishops of Canterbury;
Lord Habgood and Lord Hope of Thornes, who rank higher as
retired Archbishops of York; and
Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who ranks higher as a retired
Bishop of Oxford
Gentry, et al.
Master of the Rolls and Supreme Court Justices
The Master of the Rolls[9] (Lord Dyson[nb 11])
The Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom[8]
(office held by a woman, Baroness Hale of Richmond)
Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom other than the
President and the Deputy President[8][nb 11]
Lord Mance (ranks higher as a life peer)
Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore (ranks higher as a life peer)
Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony (ranks higher as a life peer)
Lord Wilson of Culworth
Lord Sumption
Lord Reed
Lord Carnwath of Notting Hill
Lord Hughes of Ombersley
Lord Toulson
Lord Hodge
Royal Household officials
other Great Officers of State (?) (none at present, as the Lord
Great Chamberlain, Earl Marshal and Lord High Admiral rank higher as a
Marquess, Duke, and sovereign's spouse and Duke of Edinburgh respectively)
Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal (none; last appointed in 1850)[3]
other Great Officers of the Royal Household (all rank higher as peers)
The Treasurer of the Household (office held by a woman, Anne Milton MP)
The Comptroller of the Household (Mel Stride MP)
The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Julian Smith MP)
Cabinet, et al.
Secretaries of State under the degree of a baron[nb 12]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
(Boris Johnson MP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon MP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green MP)
The Secretary of State for Health (Jeremy Hunt MP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling MP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire MP)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
(Sajid Javid MP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns MP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell MP)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy (Greg Clark MP)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (David
Davis MP)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Liam Fox MP)
The Secretaries of State for the Home Department; for Justice;
for International Development; for Education; for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs; and for Culture, Media and Sport are women
Eldest sons of viscounts (ordered according to the precedence of
the peerage holders)
Younger sons of earls and of countesses in their own right (ordered
according to the precedence of the peerage holders)
Eldest sons of hereditary barons, Lords of Parliament, hereditary
baronesses in their own right and Ladies of Parliament in their own
right (ordered according to the precedence of the peerage holders)
Knights of the Garter and Knights of the Thistle
Knights of the Garter (KG) (who are not already ranked higher in
precedence as peers or royalty)
Sir Ninian Stephen
Sir Timothy Colman
Sir William Gladstone, Bt
Sir Antony Acland
Sir John Major
Sir Thomas Dunne
Sir David Brewer
Knights of the Thistle (KT) (who are not already ranked higher in
precedence as peers or royalty)
Sir Eric Anderson
Knights of St Patrick (none; order dormant[nb 13])
Privy Counsellors, et al.
Privy Counsellors (PC) (ordered according to date of
oath-taking)[nb 14]
The Chancellor of the Order of the Garter (The Duke of Abercorn,
who ranks higher as a non-royal duke)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Philip Hammond MP, who ranks
higher as a Privy Counsellor)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir Patrick McLoughlin
MP, who ranks higher as a Privy Counsellor)
Senior judges, et al.
Senior judges
The President of the Queen's Bench Division[nb 15] (Sir Brian
Leveson, who ranks higher as a Privy Counsellor)
The President of the Family Division of the High Court (Sir
James Munby, who ranks higher as a Privy Counsellor)
The Chancellor of the High Court (Sir Terence Etherton, who
ranks higher as a Privy Counsellor)
Lords Justices of Appeal (ordered according to seniority of
appointment; Lords Justices of Appeal are customarily made Privy
Counsellors, and thus rank accordingly)
Judges of the High Court (ordered according to seniority of
appointment; Judges of the High Court are customarily made Knights
Bachelor and thus rank accordingly, when they retire)
Younger sons of viscounts (ordered according to the precedence of
the peerage holders)
Younger sons of hereditary barons, Lords of Parliament, hereditary
baronesses in their own right and Ladies of Parliament in their own
right (ordered according to the precedence of the peerage holders)
All sons of barons and baronesses for life (ordered according to
the precedence of the peerage holders)[nb 16]
Baronets
Baronets (Bt) (ordered according to date of creation),[nb 17]
excepting:
Sir William Gladstone, who ranks higher as a Knight of the Garter
Knights
Knights Grand Cross
Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (GCB)
Knights Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of India
(GCSI) (none; order dormant[nb 18])
Knights Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (GCMG)
Knights Grand Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire
(GCIE) (none; order dormant[nb 18])
Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO)
Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE)
Knights Commander
Knights Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB)
Knights Commander of the Order of the Star of India (KCSI)
(none; order dormant[nb 19])
Knights Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George (KCMG)
Knights Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire (KCIE)
(none; order dormant[nb 20])
Knights Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (KCVO)
Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE)
Knights Bachelor (Kt)[nb 21]
Lower level judges, et al.
The Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster (Mr Justice
Norris, who ranks higher as a High Court judge; it is customary for a
High Court judge to be named to this position)
The Recorder of London (HH Judge Hilliard QC)
The Recorders of Manchester and of Liverpool (in order of appointment)
The Recorder of Liverpool (HH Judge Goldstone QC)
The Recorder of Manchester (HH Judge Stockdale QC)
The Common Serjeant of London (HH Judge Marks QC)
Judges junior to those of the High Court
Circuit judges
The Senior Judge of the Court of Protection (Denzil Lush)
Other lower ranks, including Esquires and Gentlemen
Companions, commanders, lieutenants and officers of various orders
Companions of the Order of the Bath (CB)
Companions of the Order of the Star of India (CSI) (none; order
dormant[nb 22])
Companions of the Order of St Michael and St George (CMG)
Companions of the Order of the Indian Empire (CIE) (none; order
dormant[nb 23])
Commanders of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO)
Commanders of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)
Companions of the Distinguished Service Order (DSO)
Lieutenants of the Royal Victorian Order (LVO)
Officers of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)
Companions of the Imperial Service Order (ISO)
Eldest sons of various grades
Eldest sons of younger sons of hereditary peers or hereditary
peeresses in their own right (ordered according to the precedence of the
peerage holders)
Eldest sons of baronets (ordered according to the precedence of the
baronets)
Eldest sons of knights (ordered according to the precedence of the
knights)
Members of orders
Members of the Royal Victorian Order (MVO)
Members of the Order of the British Empire (MBE)
Younger sons of various grades
Younger sons of baronets (ordered according to the precedence of
the baronets)
Younger sons of knights (ordered according to the precedence of the
knights)
Ladies
Royalty
The order of precedence accorded to ladies of the royal family differs
depending on whether or not they are accompanied by a husband who is
accorded higher precedence. When unaccompanied, blood relations of the
sovereign are always accorded higher precedence. For example, when not
accompanied by The Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall ranks after
Princess Alexandra; when with her husband, the Duchess of Cornwall ranks
above all ladies other than the reigning sovereign and any queens
dowager.[18]
The sovereign
The Queen
Queen dowager
None
The sovereign’s daughter
The Princess Royal
The sovereign’s granddaughters
Princess Beatrice of York
Princess Eugenie of York
Lady Louise Windsor
Zara Tindall
Daughters of the former sovereign
None
Granddaughters of the former sovereign
Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy
The Wife of the Heir Apparent
The Duchess of Cornwall
Wives of sons of the Heir Apparent
The Duchess of Cambridge
Wives of the younger sons of the sovereign
The Countess of Wessex
Wives of the sons of former sovereigns
None
Wives of the grandsons of former sovereigns (whose husbands are dukes)
The Duchess of Gloucester
The Duchess of Kent
Wives of the grandsons of former sovereigns (whose husbands are not
dukes)
Princess Michael of Kent
The Dowager Countess of Harewood
High Officers of State, et al.
The Lord High Chancellor (Elizabeth Truss MP)
The Prime Minister[nb 3] (Theresa May MP)
Commonwealth Prime Ministers (while visiting the UK, in order of
appointment)
The Lord Privy Seal (The Baroness Evans of Bowes Park)
Ambassadors and High Commissioners (in order of arrival)
Nobility, et al.
Wives of non-royal Dukes (Duchesses)
Wives of Eldest Sons of Royal Dukes
Countess of Ulster, wife of Earl of Ulster
Countess of St Andrews, wife of Earl of St Andrews
Daughters of Royal Dukes
Lady Davina Lewis, elder daughter of the Duke of Gloucester
Lady Rose Gilman, younger daughter of the Duke of Gloucester
Lady Helen Taylor, only daughter of the Duke of Kent
Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, only daughter of the Duke of
Cambridge[nb 1]
Marchionesses
Wives of dukes' eldest sons
Daughters of dukes not married to peers
Countesses (ordered according to the year the earldom was created;
whether in her own or her husband's right)
Wives of younger sons of Royal Dukes
The Lady Nicholas Windsor
Wives of marquesses' eldest sons
Marquesses' daughters not married to peers
Wives of dukes' younger sons
Viscountesses
Wives of eldest sons of earls or of countesses in their own right
Earls' daughters not married to peers
Wives of marquesses' younger sons
Secretaries of State being of the degree of a baron (none at present)
Baronesses in their own right, Ladies of Parliament and wives of Barons
Gentry, et al.
The Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom[8]
(Baroness Hale of Richmond, who ranks higher as a life peer)
Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom other than the
President and the Deputy President.[8] (none at present)
The Royal Household
Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal (none)
The Treasurer of the Household (Anne Milton MP)
Secretaries of State under the degree of baroness:
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd MP)
The Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss MP, who
ranks higher as Lord Chancellor)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti
Patel MP)
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening MP)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Andrea Leadsom MP)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen
Bradley MP)
Other lower ranks
Wives of viscounts' eldest sons
Viscounts' daughters not married to peers
Wives of younger sons of earls or of countesses in their own right
Wives of eldest sons of barons or baronesses
Daughters of barons or baronesses not married to peers
Ladies and Dames, et al.
Ladies of the Garter (all rank higher in precedence)
Ladies of the Thistle (who are not already ranked higher)
Lady Marion Fraser
Wives of Knights of the Garter (who are not already ranked higher)
Lady Stephan
Lady Colman
Lady Gladstone
Lady Acland
Lady Major (also titled Dame Norma Major, a Dame Commander of
the Order of the British Empire in her own right but with lower precedence)
Lady Dunne
Lady Brewer
Wives of Knights of the Thistle (who are not already ranked higher)
Lady Anderson
Lady Morrison
Privy Counsellors (PC) (ordered according to date of
oath-taking)[nb 14]
Senior judges
Lords Justices of Appeal
Judges of the High Court
Wives of viscounts' younger sons
Wives of younger sons of barons or baronesses
Baronetesses in their own right (none at present)[nb 24]
Wives of baronets
Dames Grand Cross
Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath
Dames Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George
Dames Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order
Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire
Wives of Knights Grand Cross and Grand Commander
Wives of Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath
Wives of Knights Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of India
Wives of Knights Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St
George
Wives of Knights Grand Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire
Wives of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order
Wives of Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire
Dames Commander
Dames Commander of the Order of the Bath
Dames Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George
Dames Commander of the Royal Victorian Order
Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire
Circuit judges
Wives of Knights Commander
Wives of Knights Commander of the Order of the Bath
Wives of Knights Commander of the Order of the Star of India
Wives of Knights Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George
Wives of Knights Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire
Wives of Knights Commander of the Royal Victorian Order
Wives of Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire
Wives of Knights Bachelor
Members of orders, et al.
Companions of orders
Companions of the Order of the Bath
Companions of the Order of St Michael and St George
Commanders of the Royal Victorian Order
Commanders of the Order of the British Empire
Wives of members of orders
Wives of Companions of the Order of the Bath
Wives of Companions of the Order of the Star of India
Wives of Companions of the Order of St Michael and St George
Wives of Companions of the Order of the Indian Empire
Wives of Commanders of the Royal Victorian Order
Wives of Commanders of the Order of the British Empire
Wives of Companions of the Distinguished Service Order
Lieutenants of the Royal Victorian Order
Officers of the Order of the British Empire
Wives of Lieutenants of the Royal Victorian Order
Wives of Officers of the Order of the British Empire
Companions of the Imperial Service Order
Wives of Companions of the Imperial Service Order
Wives and daughters of peers, baronets, and knights, et al.
Wives of the eldest sons of sons of peers or peeresses
Daughters of sons of peers or peeresses
Wives of the eldest sons of baronets
Daughters of baronets
Wives of eldest sons of knights
Wives of eldest sons of Knights of the Garter
Wives of eldest sons of Knights of the Thistle
Wives of eldest sons of Knights of St Patrick
Wives of eldest sons of Knights Grand Cross or Grand Commander
Wives of eldest sons of Knights Commander
Daughters of knights:
Daughters of Knights of the Garter
Daughters of Knights of the Thistle
Daughters of Knights Grand Cross or Grand Commander
Daughters of Knights Commander
Members of the Royal Victorian Order
Members of the Order of the British Empire
Wives of members of the Royal Victorian Order
Wives of members of the Order of the British Empire
Wives of younger sons
Wives of younger sons of baronets
Wives of younger sons of knights
Wives of younger sons of Knights of the Garter
Wives of younger sons of Knights of the Thistle
Wives of younger sons of Knights of St Patrick
Wives of younger sons of Knights Grand Cross or Knights Grand
Commander
Wives of younger sons of Knights Commander
Local precedence
The Lord Lieutenant of the County
The High Sheriff of the County
The Lord Mayor
The (elected) mayor
The chairman of the county council
The deputy mayor
Aldermen
Councillors
Justices of the Peace
The clerk of the County Council
The town clerk
The chief constable
The county engineer or borough engineer
"
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 12:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4jitdFdprqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393396 |
On 23/09/2016 06:23, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 22.09.2016 09:37, schrieb Alex W.: >> On 22/09/2016 16:34, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 22.09.2016 02:11, schrieb Alex W.: >>> >>>>>>> Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not >>>>>>> deputies >>>>>>> >in a parliament. >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> We have no parliament. Judges are a part of the Judicial branch of >>>>>> the government. >>>>>> >>>>>> Our system is a representative republic, not a democracy. >>>>> >>>>> Usually the administration of the nation is divided into three >>>>> branches: >>>>> - legislation >>>>> - jurisdiction >>>>> - executive branch >>>>> >>>>> The government is the head of the executive branch. This is usually >>>>> called Prime minister and ministers. >>>> >>>> That would be a parliamentary democracy. >>>> >>>> The variant form as practised in France, on the other hand, is of a >>>> type >>>> known as presidential democracy. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The laws are made by the legislative branch, which is the actual law >>>>> giver. This is composed from the elected representative. Their >>>>> congregation is usually called 'Parliament' or something equivalent. >>>>> >>>>> The branch, that applies these laws is jurisdiction. But they do not >>>>> make laws, because they are not elected. >>>>> >>>>> This is more or less the system of democracies and republics. >>>> >>>> Not quite. >>>> All democracies practise some form of separation of powers, but the >>>> extent to which the judicative branch influences the implementation of >>>> the law can and does differ. >>>> >>>> For that matter, the German constitutional court >>>> (Bundesverfassungsgericht) does deliver verdicts which have legislative >>>> force. Their judgments *override* the will of the parliament. >>> >>> Yes, that's true. >>> >>> But the force of this court is limited, since its sole subject is the >>> protection of the constitution. >>> >>> In can in fact override any decision of the government, if this would >>> violate the constitution. >>> >>> So not even the parliament and/or the government can do things, which >>> the constitution does not allow. >> >> Theoretically. >> In practice, the court chooses which cases to hear and which issues to >> deal with. So if the court, for whatever reason, decides not to take on >> a specific case, then the government is free to do whatever they want in >> this matter, whether it is constitutional or not. >> >> >>> >>>>> But the US system seem to be quite different and does not fall in any >>>>> known category. >>>> >>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>> >>> >>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. They have >>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. >>> The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'. >> >> Have you watched too much costume drama? > > Actually I have participated too long in the UseNet group 'alt.conspiracy'. > > So I always try to figure out, who are the 'bad guys'. > > My latest hypothesis: the 'Livery Companies' of the City of London (aka > 'guilds'). > >> What century do you live in? > > Depends on how you count. >> >> We do have a queen. Her formal role is even more restricted than that of >> the German president (although, due to her very long tenure, she has >> rather more private influence than Gauck). > > > Lets compare: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_order_of_precedence > > "The German order of precedence is a symbolic hierarchy of officials in > the Government of Germany used to direct protocol. It has no official > status, but has been established in practical use.[1] > > The Federal President (Bundespräsident) > The President of the Bundestag (Bundestagspräsident) > The Chancellor (Bundeskanzler) > The President of the Federal Council (Bundesratspräsident), also > acting as deputy to the President > The President of the Federal Constitutional Court (Präsident des > Bundesverfassungsgerichts) <snip> Note the word "symbolic". What you listed and what I snipped is *symbolic*. It's a social guide to who gets to sit where at state banquets. If you happen to be a wedding organiser specialising in the high society, you will need this. Otherwise, it is quite meaningless in all the ways that matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 06:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4p1l8Fn4h1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393439 |
Am 23.09.2016 04:38, schrieb Alex W.: >>> We do have a queen. Her formal role is even more restricted than that of >>> the German president (although, due to her very long tenure, she has >>> rather more private influence than Gauck). >> >> >> Lets compare: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_order_of_precedence >> >> "The German order of precedence is a symbolic hierarchy of officials in >> the Government of Germany used to direct protocol. It has no official >> status, but has been established in practical use.[1] >> >> The Federal President (Bundespräsident) >> The President of the Bundestag (Bundestagspräsident) >> The Chancellor (Bundeskanzler) >> The President of the Federal Council (Bundesratspräsident), also >> acting as deputy to the President >> The President of the Federal Constitutional Court (Präsident des >> Bundesverfassungsgerichts) > > <snip> > > Note the word "symbolic". > > What you listed and what I snipped is *symbolic*. It's a social guide to > who gets to sit where at state banquets. If you happen to be a wedding > organiser specialising in the high society, you will need this. > Otherwise, it is quite meaningless in all the ways that matter. > Yes, but the words "symbolic" occurs in German order of precedence. English aristocracy is not symbolic, but real. As far as I understand the system, there are ranks and files in a formal organisation, which are 'mirrored' by the social status of a person in the real world. This is valid for every single person in public view (musicians, actors, writers, publishers, sportsmen, politicians, tv-show moderators, military personal, company leaders and so forth). So the ritual promotion is such kind of sect is mirrored by a promotion in the society. But the status in the society is real (not "symbolic"). This system apparently spreads out around the globe and includes members of other nations. Those would actually comply with an alien nation and commit a crime against their own constitution' But - on the other hand - it is so NICE to become knighted and the Queen is soooo friendly. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 02:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-40026E.02284922092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #393296 |
In article <e4hcbrFrutsU1@mid.individual.net>, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 22.09.2016 02:11, schrieb Alex W.: > > >>>> Fourth: 'Common law' makes court decisions to quasi-laws. > >>>> > > >>>> >This violates the principle of democracy, since judges are not > >>>> deputies > >>>> >in a parliament. > >>>> > > >> > >>> We have no parliament. Judges are a part of the Judicial branch of > >>> the government. > >>> > >>> Our system is a representative republic, not a democracy. > >> > >> Usually the administration of the nation is divided into three branches: > >> - legislation > >> - jurisdiction > >> - executive branch > >> > >> The government is the head of the executive branch. This is usually > >> called Prime minister and ministers. > > > > That would be a parliamentary democracy. > > > > The variant form as practised in France, on the other hand, is of a type > > known as presidential democracy. > > > > > >> > >> The laws are made by the legislative branch, which is the actual law > >> giver. This is composed from the elected representative. Their > >> congregation is usually called 'Parliament' or something equivalent. > >> > >> The branch, that applies these laws is jurisdiction. But they do not > >> make laws, because they are not elected. > >> > >> This is more or less the system of democracies and republics. > > > > Not quite. > > All democracies practise some form of separation of powers, but the > > extent to which the judicative branch influences the implementation of > > the law can and does differ. > > > > For that matter, the German constitutional court > > (Bundesverfassungsgericht) does deliver verdicts which have legislative > > force. Their judgments *override* the will of the parliament. > > Yes, that's true. > > But the force of this court is limited, since its sole subject is the > protection of the constitution. > > In can in fact override any decision of the government, if this would > violate the constitution. > > So not even the parliament and/or the government can do things, which > the constitution does not allow. > > >> But the US system seem to be quite different and does not fall in any > >> known category. > > > > Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as > > opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. > > > > As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. They have > also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. > The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'. > > > Now what of these features do you find in the USA??? Most of them. The President is both the Queen and the Prime Minister. And we most definitely have our aristocracy; we call them the 1%. This "Guilds" thing I don't know, but the legislative branch, the executive, and the Fed run the economy. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 22:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4is8cF8tmbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393312 |
Am 22.09.2016 11:28, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: >>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>> >> >> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. They have >> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. >> The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'. >> >> >> Now what of these features do you find in the USA??? > > Most of them. The President is both the Queen and the Prime Minister. > And we most definitely have our aristocracy; we call them the 1%. This > "Guilds" thing I don't know, but the legislative branch, the executive, > and the Fed run the economy. > So you call your parasitic life-forms '1%'. And your president is the Queen? Well, yes, sure,... ... somehow I thought it would be this way. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 22:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7uf8ubd9bd2ahp6lc0ss0k7epklkmprme1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #393392 |
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:11:48 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Am 22.09.2016 11:28, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: > >>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>> >>> >>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>> They have >>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the medieval period. The York Merchant Taylors Guild for example has a magnificent medieval Guildhall one of the gems of York now open to the public. The Merchant Aventurers Hall is even more splendid and was built in the 14th C I once attended a banquet in there underneath the magnificent oak framed roof http://www.theyorkcompany.co.uk/ These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago though some remnants remain >>> The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'. Not so much parasitic these days, not since the inheritance tax swept away a lot of their wealth. Les Hellawell Greetings from: YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County Martin Luther wrote: "Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding Which means that if Luther practised what he preached nothing he ever said made any sense
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 04:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4jiqaFdpvrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393413 |
Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: >>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>> >>>> >>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. > > >>>> They have >>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. > > Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as > the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the > medieval period. .. > > These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the > jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the > town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago > though some remnants remain The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the country. They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually behave coordinated. They seem to practise an authoritarian kind of (right winged) socialism. The behaviour is quite anti-capitalistic, but a strange form of collectivism. These collectives are organised in vertical steps, which build a vast superstructure of interlocked organisations. At the top of this ice-berg we find the Queen of England. A few levels lower we find the guilds of the city of London and remains of colonial guilds, like the Virginia Company or the East India Company. How this system work in detail, that is not known, at least not for me. But the City of London does still exist today. Also the guild exist today and still control the economy of their realm. As far as I know, they are called 'Livery Companies'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 16:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4jvq7FggfeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393437 |
On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: > >>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >> >> >>>>> They have >>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of >>>>> economy. >> >> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >> medieval period. .. >> >> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the >> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago >> though some remnants remain > > The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. > > These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the > country. > > They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually > behave coordinated. The entity is not unknown. We call it "the marketplace". The same pressures and attractions of the business environment will lead to similar behaviour. If one firm reduces prices, its competitors will follow suit, and for the same reasons. If one company launches a new product or service, others will have to do the same. No conspiracy there... > > They seem to practise an authoritarian kind of (right winged) socialism. > The behaviour is quite anti-capitalistic, but a strange form of > collectivism. These collectives are organised in vertical steps, which > build a vast superstructure of interlocked organisations. > > At the top of this ice-berg we find the Queen of England. Who has no actual political power and who exercises economic power only as the head and administrator of the admittedly significant financial holdings of the British Crown. > > A few levels lower we find the guilds of the city of London and remains > of colonial guilds, like the Virginia Company or the East India Company. None of which have any legal, political or economic power or rights. > > How this system work in detail, that is not known, at least not for me. > > But the City of London does still exist today. Of course it does. It is a *city*. You might as well find it suspicious that the cities of Hamburg or Berlin or Frankfurt exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 02:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ns2il8$ug3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393447 |
Le 2016-09-23 à 02:18, Alex W. a écrit : > On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: >> >>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>> >>> >>>>>> They have >>>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of >>>>>> economy. >>> >>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >>> medieval period. .. >>> >>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the >>> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago >>> though some remnants remain >> >> The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. >> >> These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the >> country. >> >> They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually >> behave coordinated. > > The entity is not unknown. > > We call it "the marketplace". > > The same pressures and attractions of the business environment will lead > to similar behaviour. If one firm reduces prices, its competitors will > follow suit, and for the same reasons. What reasons? Usually it's always by reducing labour costs. Even with slavery you have to account with labour cost. How low can one get? > If one company launches a new > product or service, others will have to do the same. Not unless the new product or service is patented or trademarked or copyrighted. > No conspiracy there... > > >> >> They seem to practise an authoritarian kind of (right winged) socialism. >> The behaviour is quite anti-capitalistic, but a strange form of >> collectivism. These collectives are organised in vertical steps, which >> build a vast superstructure of interlocked organisations. >> >> At the top of this ice-berg we find the Queen of England. > > Who has no actual political power and who exercises economic power only > as the head and administrator of the admittedly significant financial > holdings of the British Crown. > > >> >> A few levels lower we find the guilds of the city of London and remains >> of colonial guilds, like the Virginia Company or the East India Company. > > None of which have any legal, political or economic power or rights. > > >> >> How this system work in detail, that is not known, at least not for me. >> >> But the City of London does still exist today. > > Of course it does. > > It is a *city*. > > You might as well find it suspicious that the cities of Hamburg or > Berlin or Frankfurt exist. > > > -- Olrik aa #1981 EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 18:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4k6ulFi606U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393450 |
On 23/09/2016 16:38, Olrik wrote: > Le 2016-09-23 à 02:18, Alex W. a écrit : >> On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: >>> >>>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> They have >>>>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of >>>>>>> economy. >>>> >>>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >>>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >>>> medieval period. .. >>>> >>>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the >>>> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago >>>> though some remnants remain >>> >>> The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. >>> >>> These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the >>> country. >>> >>> They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually >>> behave coordinated. >> >> The entity is not unknown. >> >> We call it "the marketplace". >> >> The same pressures and attractions of the business environment will lead >> to similar behaviour. If one firm reduces prices, its competitors will >> follow suit, and for the same reasons. > > What reasons? Usually it's always by reducing labour costs. Even with > slavery you have to account with labour cost. How low can one get? Labour costs, infrastructure, the tax and regulatory environment, proximity to the customers, transport costs, availability of resources, defending or increasing market share, global stockmarket gyrations, structural changes within any given industry.... > >> If one company launches a new >> product or service, others will have to do the same. > > Not unless the new product or service is patented or trademarked or > copyrighted. Even then. There are ways around these problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 09:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4k413FhfgeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393447 |
Am 23.09.2016 08:18, schrieb Alex W.: > On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: >> >>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>> >>> >>>>>> They have >>>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of >>>>>> economy. >>> >>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >>> medieval period. .. >>> >>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the >>> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago >>> though some remnants remain >> >> The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. >> >> These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the >> country. >> >> They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually >> behave coordinated. > > The entity is not unknown. > > We call it "the marketplace". Competitive market economy is the least thing, which these corporations have in mind. As far as an outsider can say, these corporations want monopolies and aim to destroy competitors. They also do not refrain from creating cartels and conspire with enemies. > The same pressures and attractions of the business environment will lead > to similar behaviour. If one firm reduces prices, its competitors will > follow suit, and for the same reasons. If one company launches a new > product or service, others will have to do the same. > > No conspiracy there... The government could prevent lawless economical habits, if the government itself would not be a part of the same system. The common people can do whatever they like, this wouldn't change anything. > >> >> They seem to practise an authoritarian kind of (right winged) socialism. >> The behaviour is quite anti-capitalistic, but a strange form of >> collectivism. These collectives are organised in vertical steps, which >> build a vast superstructure of interlocked organisations. >> >> At the top of this ice-berg we find the Queen of England. > > Who has no actual political power and who exercises economic power only > as the head and administrator of the admittedly significant financial > holdings of the British Crown. Yes, the real power is not applied by her personally. For this she has her people. > >> >> A few levels lower we find the guilds of the city of London and remains >> of colonial guilds, like the Virginia Company or the East India Company. > > None of which have any legal, political or economic power or rights. Well, I have found a guild that is called 'Honorable Society of worshipful Scientific instrument makers'. These 'instruments' seem to be all kinds of things and 'science' to them sounds more like warfare to me. > >> >> How this system work in detail, that is not known, at least not for me. >> >> But the City of London does still exist today. > > Of course it does. > > It is a *city*. > > You might as well find it suspicious that the cities of Hamburg or > Berlin or Frankfurt exist. > No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to England, the UK and the EU. The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and power-supply and let nobody in or out. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 18:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4k6p1Fi48qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393454 |
On 23/09/2016 17:30, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 23.09.2016 08:18, schrieb Alex W.: >> On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: >>> >>>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> They have >>>>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of >>>>>>> economy. >>>> >>>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >>>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >>>> medieval period. .. >>>> >>>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the >>>> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago >>>> though some remnants remain >>> >>> The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. >>> >>> These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the >>> country. >>> >>> They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually >>> behave coordinated. >> >> The entity is not unknown. >> >> We call it "the marketplace". > > Competitive market economy is the least thing, which these corporations > have in mind. > > As far as an outsider can say, these corporations want monopolies and > aim to destroy competitors. > > They also do not refrain from creating cartels and conspire with enemies. Which is why the marketplace is regulated. Cartels, where found, are punished really quite severely. > >> The same pressures and attractions of the business environment will lead >> to similar behaviour. If one firm reduces prices, its competitors will >> follow suit, and for the same reasons. If one company launches a new >> product or service, others will have to do the same. >> >> No conspiracy there... > > The government could prevent lawless economical habits, if the > government itself would not be a part of the same system. > > The common people can do whatever they like, this wouldn't change anything. Except that firms flourish or die at the mercy of the consumers, aka "the common people". > >> >>> >>> They seem to practise an authoritarian kind of (right winged) socialism. >>> The behaviour is quite anti-capitalistic, but a strange form of >>> collectivism. These collectives are organised in vertical steps, which >>> build a vast superstructure of interlocked organisations. >>> >>> At the top of this ice-berg we find the Queen of England. >> >> Who has no actual political power and who exercises economic power only >> as the head and administrator of the admittedly significant financial >> holdings of the British Crown. > > > Yes, the real power is not applied by her personally. For this she has > her people. ... who become "her people" as decided by the electorate. She has no say in this. >> >>> >>> A few levels lower we find the guilds of the city of London and remains >>> of colonial guilds, like the Virginia Company or the East India Company. >> >> None of which have any legal, political or economic power or rights. > > Well, I have found a guild that is called 'Honorable Society of > worshipful Scientific instrument makers'. > > These 'instruments' seem to be all kinds of things and 'science' to them > sounds more like warfare to me. So? Does this guild/society have any actual power? Do they dictate defence procurement? Do they formulate government policy? > >> >>> >>> How this system work in detail, that is not known, at least not for me. >>> >>> But the City of London does still exist today. >> >> Of course it does. >> >> It is a *city*. >> >> You might as well find it suspicious that the cities of Hamburg or >> Berlin or Frankfurt exist. >> > > No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. > > It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to > England, the UK and the EU. > > The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and > power-supply and let nobody in or out. The City of London is a separate and distinct legal entity from Greater London. It existed for centuries when "London" did not have a mayor or a city hall or any sort of administration beyond the level of individual boroughs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 02:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-970A7E.02315923092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #393458 |
In article <e4k6p1Fi48qU1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 23/09/2016 17:30, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 23.09.2016 08:18, schrieb Alex W.: > >> On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: > >>> > >>>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as > >>>>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> They have > >>>>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of > >>>>>>> economy. > >>>> > >>>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as > >>>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the > >>>> medieval period. .. > >>>> > >>>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the > >>>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the > >>>> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago > >>>> though some remnants remain > >>> > >>> The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. > >>> > >>> These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the > >>> country. > >>> > >>> They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually > >>> behave coordinated. > >> > >> The entity is not unknown. > >> > >> We call it "the marketplace". > > > > Competitive market economy is the least thing, which these corporations > > have in mind. > > > > As far as an outsider can say, these corporations want monopolies and > > aim to destroy competitors. > > > > They also do not refrain from creating cartels and conspire with enemies. > > Which is why the marketplace is regulated. Cartels, where found, are > punished really quite severely. It seems they're not anymore. Banking is down to a tiny number of majors and a bunch of weak, mostly localized, banks. TV/Internet companies keep merging so there's almost no competition. Monsanto just got bought by Bayer (if they get regulatory approval). > >> The same pressures and attractions of the business environment will lead > >> to similar behaviour. If one firm reduces prices, its competitors will > >> follow suit, and for the same reasons. If one company launches a new > >> product or service, others will have to do the same. > >> > >> No conspiracy there... > > > > The government could prevent lawless economical habits, if the > > government itself would not be a part of the same system. > > > > The common people can do whatever they like, this wouldn't change anything. > > Except that firms flourish or die at the mercy of the consumers, aka > "the common people". Too many of them don't seem to care. > >>> They seem to practise an authoritarian kind of (right winged) socialism. > >>> The behaviour is quite anti-capitalistic, but a strange form of > >>> collectivism. These collectives are organised in vertical steps, which > >>> build a vast superstructure of interlocked organisations. > >>> > >>> At the top of this ice-berg we find the Queen of England. > >> > >> Who has no actual political power and who exercises economic power only > >> as the head and administrator of the admittedly significant financial > >> holdings of the British Crown. > > > > > > Yes, the real power is not applied by her personally. For this she has > > her people. > > ... who become "her people" as decided by the electorate. She has no > say in this. Exactly. > >>> A few levels lower we find the guilds of the city of London and remains > >>> of colonial guilds, like the Virginia Company or the East India Company. > >> > >> None of which have any legal, political or economic power or rights. > > > > Well, I have found a guild that is called 'Honorable Society of > > worshipful Scientific instrument makers'. > > > > These 'instruments' seem to be all kinds of things and 'science' to them > > sounds more like warfare to me. > > So? Does this guild/society have any actual power? Do they dictate > defence procurement? Do they formulate government policy? > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> How this system work in detail, that is not known, at least not for me. > >>> > >>> But the City of London does still exist today. > >> > >> Of course it does. > >> > >> It is a *city*. > >> > >> You might as well find it suspicious that the cities of Hamburg or > >> Berlin or Frankfurt exist. > >> > > > > No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. > > > > It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to > > England, the UK and the EU. > > > > The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and > > power-supply and let nobody in or out. Gee, look at Thomas telling the Brits how to run their country. > The City of London is a separate and distinct legal entity from Greater > London. It existed for centuries when "London" did not have a mayor or > a city hall or any sort of administration beyond the level of individual > boroughs. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 10:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4m0psF190tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393462 |
On 23/09/2016 19:31, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > In article <e4k6p1Fi48qU1@mid.individual.net>, > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 23/09/2016 17:30, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. >>> >>> It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to >>> England, the UK and the EU. >>> >>> The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and >>> power-supply and let nobody in or out. > > Gee, look at Thomas telling the Brits how to run their country. Been there, had that, graciously refused their offer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web