On Oct 29, 10:10 am, "Tim C."  wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:39:19 퍍 (GMT), Jane Gillett wrote in post :
> <news:50b1b9038ej.gillett@higherstert.co.uk> :
>
> > No idea whether H1N1 is germ warfare - why should it be?
>
> It's a plot by the pharmatocracy to increase profits.
>
> If it is it's very poorly thought out and full of faults. So I suppose it
> must be germ warfare, as we know that the moon landings were faked and that
> the WTC/pentagon attacks were US government conspiracies.  :-)  

Don't know about the moon landings - and don't much care - but am
pretty sure that the WTC/Pentagon attacks weren't carried out by 19
incompetent Saudis, masterminded by a man on a dialysis machine in a
cave near Kabul!

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:10:52 -0000, "Ophelia"  wrote:

>
>"CP"  wrote in message 
>news:a460624b-b434-46e5-b8b1-c21dc32920c6@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>On Oct 29, 12:22 pm, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for 
>> them.
>
>The US government's explanation for 911 *is* a conspiracy theory: they
>claim that a group of Saudi terrorists conspired, which in anyone's
>book makes it a conspiracy theory.
>
>The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?

Who said I believed any of it?
:o)

>
>It really is quite simple. Should I use glove puppets, perhaps?
>
><g>

Sock puppets are more common here :o)
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:06:42 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:04:48 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
><news:qnbje55lhasj40m2emqrnoau3ug75f9f0l@4ax.com> :
>
>>>I don't believe in conspiracy theories either!  Of course, *they* want you 
>>>to think that way{;-)
>> 
>> Colin attracts the black helicopters like flies.
>
>That made me splutter coffee on my keyboard for the first time in ages.
>:-)

I conspired to do that. 
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:12:06 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
<news:k5cje5dtvg6rmapa2411e1tbe3742as3om@4ax.com> :

> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:06:42 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:04:48 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>><news:qnbje55lhasj40m2emqrnoau3ug75f9f0l@4ax.com> :
>>
>>>>I don't believe in conspiracy theories either!  Of course, *they* want you 
>>>>to think that way{;-)
>>> 
>>> Colin attracts the black helicopters like flies.
>>
>>That made me splutter coffee on my keyboard for the first time in ages.
>>:-)
> 
> I conspired to do that.

Can you have a conspiracy of one? :)
-- 
Tim C.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:57:48 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:02:24 -0700 (PDT), CP wrote in post : 
><news:a460624b-b434-46e5-b8b1-c21dc32920c6@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :
>
>> On Oct 29, 12:22 pm, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for them.
>> 
>> The US government's explanation for 911 *is* a conspiracy theory: they
>> claim that a group of Saudi terrorists conspired, which in anyone's
>> book makes it a conspiracy theory.
>
>
>It makes the Saudi's plan a conspiracy. It doesn't make the US Govt's 
>explanation a conspiracy. 
> 
>> The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?
>
>Which one? The theory that says that the Saudis did it? Or the theory that 
>says the US Govt. says the Saudis did it?

and what was incompetent about the result of the attack.
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:59:40 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:41:50 +0000, Mike.. .  . wrote in post :
><news:a0bkfxn2cdse.1oh4p3rinrzbn.dlg@40tude.net> :
>
>> But we all know Prince Phillip murdered Diana, or was it the CIA?
>
>I thought it was the bell-boy at the hotel she was staying at.

Ding "Bloody" Dong?
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:12:29 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:12:06 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
><news:k5cje5dtvg6rmapa2411e1tbe3742as3om@4ax.com> :
>
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:06:42 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
>> 
>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:04:48 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>>><news:qnbje55lhasj40m2emqrnoau3ug75f9f0l@4ax.com> :
>>>
>>>>>I don't believe in conspiracy theories either!  Of course, *they* want you 
>>>>>to think that way{;-)
>>>> 
>>>> Colin attracts the black helicopters like flies.
>>>
>>>That made me splutter coffee on my keyboard for the first time in ages.
>>>:-)
>> 
>> I conspired to do that.
>
>Can you have a conspiracy of one? :)

I colluded together with myself.
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:13:19 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:12:16 +0000, Mike.. .  . wrote in post :
><news:1qjylbcxy7fmc$.1gg69f8rnhbzh$.dlg@40tude.net> :
>
>> I though the evidence pointed to *some* Saudis and other arabs doing it.
>
>You know what I mean :)

That was hear say gone tomorrow evidence.
-- 

Martin

"Tim C."  wrote in message 
news:97ah36tcsrlw$.d7szufnbngip.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:12:06 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
> <news:k5cje5dtvg6rmapa2411e1tbe3742as3om@4ax.com> :
>
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:06:42 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:04:48 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>>><news:qnbje55lhasj40m2emqrnoau3ug75f9f0l@4ax.com> :
>>>
>>>>>I don't believe in conspiracy theories either!  Of course, *they* want 
>>>>>you
>>>>>to think that way{;-)
>>>>
>>>> Colin attracts the black helicopters like flies.
>>>
>>>That made me splutter coffee on my keyboard for the first time in ages.
>>>:-)
>>
>> I conspired to do that.
>
> Can you have a conspiracy of one? :)

Yes, and I am unanimous in that!

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:49:58 -0000, "Ophelia"  wrote:

>
>"Tim C."  wrote in message 
>news:97ah36tcsrlw$.d7szufnbngip.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:12:06 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>> <news:k5cje5dtvg6rmapa2411e1tbe3742as3om@4ax.com> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:06:42 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:04:48 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>>>><news:qnbje55lhasj40m2emqrnoau3ug75f9f0l@4ax.com> :
>>>>
>>>>>>I don't believe in conspiracy theories either!  Of course, *they* want 
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>to think that way{;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Colin attracts the black helicopters like flies.
>>>>
>>>>That made me splutter coffee on my keyboard for the first time in ages.
>>>>:-)
>>>
>>> I conspired to do that.
>>
>> Can you have a conspiracy of one? :)
>
>Yes, and I am unanimous in that! 

Oh NO You're NOT!
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:41:50 +0000, "Mike.. .  ."
 wrote:

>Following up to CP 
>
>> The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?
>
>middle eastern terrorists who had trained to do so, flying into buildings,
>just as they have attacked other targets since in a nutty jihad against
>western values (that offended them in Saudi Arabia). How much "sense" does
>it make for all the other hundreds of young isalmics to blow themselves to
>bits? Do you think they are all western or Israeli plots?
>
>The colossal risks of discovery of an inside or Israeli job as so high and
>so catastrophic as to be laughable.
>
>But we all know Prince Phillip murdered Diana, or was it the CIA?

You filthy scum troll.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:12:16 +0000, "Mike.. .  ."
 wrote:

>Following up to Tim C. 
>
>>> The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?
>> 
>> Which one? The theory that says that the Saudis did it? Or the theory that 
>> says the US Govt. says the Saudis did it?
>
>I though the evidence pointed to *some* Saudis and other arabs doing it.
>
>The "conspiracy theories" are those not based on any evidence, as believed
>in Pakistan because they don't like the idea fellow islamists are mad
>murdering bastards and do like the idea the US is evil.

What has this crap got to do with food and drink?

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:28:22 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
<news:f7cje59t6hdate0gml64q5n81mq4erse6u@4ax.com> :

> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:57:48 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:02:24 -0700 (PDT), CP wrote in post : 
>><news:a460624b-b434-46e5-b8b1-c21dc32920c6@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>> On Oct 29, 12:22 pm, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for them.
>>> 
>>> The US government's explanation for 911 *is* a conspiracy theory: they
>>> claim that a group of Saudi terrorists conspired, which in anyone's
>>> book makes it a conspiracy theory.
>>
>>
>>It makes the Saudi's plan a conspiracy. It doesn't make the US Govt's 
>>explanation a conspiracy. 
>> 
>>> The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?
>>
>>Which one? The theory that says that the Saudis did it? Or the theory that 
>>says the US Govt. says the Saudis did it?
> 
> and what was incompetent about the result of the attack.

I thought it went more or less to plan - assuming the the plan they had was
to cause terror, devastation and chaos.  Within hours the US had lost the
battle against terrorism. 

-- 
Tim C.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:24:47 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:28:22 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
><news:f7cje59t6hdate0gml64q5n81mq4erse6u@4ax.com> :
>
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:57:48 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
>> 
>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:02:24 -0700 (PDT), CP wrote in post : 
>>><news:a460624b-b434-46e5-b8b1-c21dc32920c6@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :
>>>
>>>> On Oct 29, 12:22 pm, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for them.
>>>> 
>>>> The US government's explanation for 911 *is* a conspiracy theory: they
>>>> claim that a group of Saudi terrorists conspired, which in anyone's
>>>> book makes it a conspiracy theory.
>>>
>>>
>>>It makes the Saudi's plan a conspiracy. It doesn't make the US Govt's 
>>>explanation a conspiracy. 
>>> 
>>>> The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?
>>>
>>>Which one? The theory that says that the Saudis did it? Or the theory that 
>>>says the US Govt. says the Saudis did it?
>> 
>> and what was incompetent about the result of the attack.
>
>I thought it went more or less to plan - assuming the the plan they had was
>to cause terror, devastation and chaos.  Within hours the US had lost the
>battle against terrorism. 

and a large burning hole mysteriously appeared in the Pentagon and another in
the middle of a field.
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:30:45 +0100, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:24:47 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:28:22 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>><news:f7cje59t6hdate0gml64q5n81mq4erse6u@4ax.com> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:57:48 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:02:24 -0700 (PDT), CP wrote in post : 
>>>><news:a460624b-b434-46e5-b8b1-c21dc32920c6@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 29, 12:22 pm, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The US government's explanation for 911 *is* a conspiracy theory: they
>>>>> claim that a group of Saudi terrorists conspired, which in anyone's
>>>>> book makes it a conspiracy theory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It makes the Saudi's plan a conspiracy. It doesn't make the US Govt's 
>>>>explanation a conspiracy. 
>>>> 
>>>>> The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?
>>>>
>>>>Which one? The theory that says that the Saudis did it? Or the theory that 
>>>>says the US Govt. says the Saudis did it?
>>> 
>>> and what was incompetent about the result of the attack.
>>
>>I thought it went more or less to plan - assuming the the plan they had was
>>to cause terror, devastation and chaos.  Within hours the US had lost the
>>battle against terrorism. 
>
>and a large burning hole mysteriously appeared in the Pentagon and another in
>the middle of a field.

according to yet another conspiracy theory.
-- 

Martin

"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:fieje5tq3d91oq4lng490r27himslkio30@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:49:58 -0000, "Ophelia" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tim C."  wrote in message
>>news:97ah36tcsrlw$.d7szufnbngip.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:12:06 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>>> <news:k5cje5dtvg6rmapa2411e1tbe3742as3om@4ax.com> :
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:06:42 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:04:48 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>>>>><news:qnbje55lhasj40m2emqrnoau3ug75f9f0l@4ax.com> :
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't believe in conspiracy theories either!  Of course, *they*
>>>>>>>want
>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>to think that way{;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Colin attracts the black helicopters like flies.
>>>>>
>>>>>That made me splutter coffee on my keyboard for the first time in ages.
>>>>>:-)
>>>>
>>>> I conspired to do that.
>>>
>>> Can you have a conspiracy of one? :)
>>
>>Yes, and I am unanimous in that!
>
> Oh NO You're NOT!

lol

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:30:45 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
<news:cngje5lsf2t10ubl8m44g59h58n500ef69@4ax.com> :

> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:24:47 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:28:22 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>><news:f7cje59t6hdate0gml64q5n81mq4erse6u@4ax.com> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:57:48 +0100, "Tim C."  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:02:24 -0700 (PDT), CP wrote in post : 
>>>><news:a460624b-b434-46e5-b8b1-c21dc32920c6@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 29, 12:22 pm, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't believe conspiracy theories at all, you seem to be a sucker for them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The US government's explanation for 911 *is* a conspiracy theory: they
>>>>> claim that a group of Saudi terrorists conspired, which in anyone's
>>>>> book makes it a conspiracy theory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It makes the Saudi's plan a conspiracy. It doesn't make the US Govt's 
>>>>explanation a conspiracy. 
>>>> 
>>>>> The whole point is this: which conspiracy theory makes more sense?
>>>>
>>>>Which one? The theory that says that the Saudis did it? Or the theory that 
>>>>says the US Govt. says the Saudis did it?
>>> 
>>> and what was incompetent about the result of the attack.
>>
>>I thought it went more or less to plan - assuming the the plan they had was
>>to cause terror, devastation and chaos.  Within hours the US had lost the
>>battle against terrorism. 
> 
> and a large burning hole mysteriously appeared in the Pentagon and another in
> the middle of a field.

I blame it on corn-circle makers. 
-- 
Tim C.

Following up to Tim C. 

> I thought it went more or less to plan - assuming the the plan they had was
> to cause terror, devastation and chaos.  Within hours the US had lost the
> battle against terrorism.

I spoke to a US kid who claimed the USA had never lost a war, hadn't heard
of Vietnam. Cheyney claimed the Taliban were beat and out of business, Bush
celebrated victory in Iraq years ago. When they pull out of those
countries, still not understanding why "shock and awe" was crass, then they
will have lost. Where it goes from there, who knows. What chance bringing
modern education to the Middle East when even in UK 50% of people want the
biblical version of science taught in schools. :-(  
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

Mike.. . . wrote:
> Following up to Tim C. 
> 
>> I thought it went more or less to plan - assuming the the plan they had was
>> to cause terror, devastation and chaos.  Within hours the US had lost the
>> battle against terrorism.
> 
> I spoke to a US kid who claimed the USA had never lost a war, hadn't heard
> of Vietnam. Cheyney claimed the Taliban were beat and out of business, Bush
> celebrated victory in Iraq years ago. When they pull out of those
> countries, still not understanding why "shock and awe" was crass, then they
> will have lost. Where it goes from there, who knows. What chance bringing
> modern education to the Middle East when even in UK 50% of people want the
> biblical version of science taught in schools. :-(  

At lunch time, I was in a pub, in a caravan park in Portsmouth. (I live 
in Preston, Lancs.) I had a very good conversation with two men and I 
mentioned the fact that recent history is not on the school syllabus any 
more and that I wanted to convey what went on during WWII to our g 
children. That they live in Portsmouth is very relevant. There have been 
lots of suggestions of what to show them, but I think the links and 
films would be too long. Mrs. Miniver is 2 hours long and only touches 
the history and you have to know about the evacuation from Dunkirk to 
understand why all those little boats were called up into service.

What surprised me today, was the logo on a tee shirt that I had never 
seen before. It was to commemorate the Malayan war. They have only 
recently formed a group. It's bits of information like this, that I like 
to know about and find very interesting.

Dave

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:02:54 +0000, "Mike.. .  ."
 wrote:

>Following up to Tim C. 
>
>> I thought it went more or less to plan - assuming the the plan they had was
>> to cause terror, devastation and chaos.  Within hours the US had lost the
>> battle against terrorism.
>
>I spoke to a US kid who claimed the USA had never lost a war, hadn't heard
>of Vietnam. Cheyney claimed the Taliban were beat and out of business, Bush
>celebrated victory in Iraq years ago. When they pull out of those
>countries, still not understanding why "shock and awe" was crass, then they
>will have lost. Where it goes from there, who knows. What chance bringing
>modern education to the Middle East when even in UK 50% of people want the
>biblical version of science taught in schools. :-(  

What has this got to do with food and drink?

The message <1tonjlyulh11r$.1oimolaju3yoa.dlg@40tude.net>
from "Mike.. .  ."  contains these words:

What chance bringing
> modern education to the Middle East when even in UK 50% of people want the
> biblical version of science taught in schools. :-(  

    Where did you get that UK stat?  I've never heard of anyone in the
UK, calling for  creationism to be taught 
in UK schools.

    Janet

The message 
from Dave  contains these words:

> At lunch time, I was in a pub, in a caravan park in Portsmouth. (I live 
> in Preston, Lancs.) I had a very good conversation with two men and I 
> mentioned the fact that recent history is not on the school syllabus any 
> more and that I wanted to convey what went on during WWII to our g 
> children. 

   That may be true of their school, but not generally. Many schools do
" living memory"
projects in which kids  record the memories and personal stories of
older family and locals,
about bombing,  evacuation,  rationing,  and much else; aspects of war
which a child can  grasp better than battles.
Very recently, here,  a school brought its pensioner "evacuees" back to
revisit the place the whole school had been evacuated to; and
brought with them, current pupils at the school. Learning history from
those who lived it!

    Here's  something you might like to show your grandchildren

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/Britain.html

     Janet

Following up to CP 

> And there is no such thing as the 'Biblical version of science'. If
> you think there is, it means you neither know the meaning of science
> nor understand the function and purpose of the Bible.

i think it means you don't understand what I talking about, or choose not
to. Probably the latter. If you think there is no biblical version of
science, well, spare my the blustering bullshit, i'm not impressed.
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

Following up to Janet Baraclough 

>    Where did you get that UK stat?  I've never heard of anyone in the
> UK, calling for  creationism to be taught 
> in UK schools.

torygraph, I pray you are right :-)
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

The message <1fyfzcfi19yck.p0smklm1zsfq$.dlg@40tude.net>
from "Mike.. .  ."  contains these words:

> Following up to Janet Baraclough 

Mike wrote

>>What chance bringing
>> modern education to the Middle East when even in UK 50% of people want the
>>> biblical version of science taught in schools. :-(  


> >    Where did you get that UK stat?  I've never heard of anyone in the
> > UK, calling for  creationism to be taught 
> > in UK schools.

> torygraph, I pray you are right :-)

   I can't find such a reference in the Telegraph, do you have one? 

    Janet

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:33:55 -0800 (PST), CP wrote in post : 
<news:134de91a-151a-4817-a584-03a65b59f728@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> :

> On Nov 3, 11:25 pm, "Mike.. .  ." 
> wrote:
>> Following up to CP
>>
>>> And there is no such thing as the 'Biblical version of science'. If
>>> you think there is, it means you neither know the meaning of science
>>> nor understand the function and purpose of the Bible.
>>
>> i think it means you don't understand what I talking about, or choose not
>> to. Probably the latter. If you think there is no biblical version of
>> science, well, spare my the blustering bullshit, i'm not impressed.
> 
> Translation: "I repeat phrases I read in the media which I don't
> really understand, and respond to challenges by telling people to
> spare the bullshit because I'm not impressed."
> 
> Ok, what is science and what is the function of divine revelation? You
> can tell me in words of one syllable if that is easier for you.

If you believe the world (in the broadest sense) was created by (a) god, 
then you can apply good scientific principles to find out and confirm the 
beauty of your god's creation. Many great scientists were religious people, 
searching for just that. 

That's not the same as taking the bible saying it's the truth and then 
bending your science to fit the bible's "facts".

-- 
Tim C.

Following up to Dave 

> and you have to know about the evacuation from Dunkirk to 
> understand why all those little boats were called up into service.

including one or two keelless canal narrowboats, imagine going to France
under fire in one of those (at 4 mph) I assume they were diesel not horse
drawn ones?
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

Following up to CP 

> Translation: "I repeat phrases I read in the media which I don't
> really understand,

bolox
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

Following up to CP 

> You
> can tell me in words of one syllable if that is easier for you.

Ahhh, I remember, we did all this before and after a lot of huffing and
puffing you eventually had to back down. No thanks to round two.
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

In article ,
   Janet Baraclough  wrote:
> The message <1tonjlyulh11r$.1oimolaju3yoa.dlg@40tude.net>
> from "Mike.. .  ."  contains these words:

> What chance bringing
> > modern education to the Middle East when even in UK 50% of people want the
> > biblical version of science taught in schools. :-(  

>     Where did you get that UK stat?  I've never heard of anyone in the
> UK, calling for  creationism to be taught 
> in UK schools.

They don't need to. UK children are brought up with the story of God
creating the earth in seven days. It may not be presented as proven fact
but the story is still very much part of our culture.

Jane

>     Janet

-- 

Jane Gillett   :   j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk   :   Totnes, Devon.

Following up to Jane Gillett 

> They don't need to. UK children are brought up with the story of God
> creating the earth in seven days. It may not be presented as proven fact
> but the story is still very much part of our culture.

according to the torygraph about half of parents want that taught in
parallel to Darwin etc. and I suppose it is in RE. It would be nice to see
the actual question that was asked.
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:29:29 +0000, Mike.. .  . wrote in post :
<news:1lcxwnh6qj4tp$.1lunaq5lvfyi0.dlg@40tude.net> :

> Following up to Dave 
> 
>> and you have to know about the evacuation from Dunkirk to 
>> understand why all those little boats were called up into service.
> 
> including one or two keelless canal narrowboats, imagine going to France
> under fire in one of those (at 4 mph) I assume they were diesel not horse
> drawn ones?

5000 sea-horses? Sort of like an aquatic Charlie and the Giant Peach. But
much less fun.

-- 
Tim C.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:57:58 +0000, Mike.. .  . wrote in post :
<news:lpney4wr5k0z$.20yf64xpd2i4.dlg@40tude.net> :

> Following up to Jane Gillett 
> 
>> They don't need to. UK children are brought up with the story of God
>> creating the earth in seven days. It may not be presented as proven fact
>> but the story is still very much part of our culture.
> 
> according to the torygraph about half of parents want that taught in
> parallel to Darwin etc. and I suppose it is in RE. It would be nice to see
> the actual question that was asked.

if it was worded the right way eve I would say yes. I'd like to see it
included in science classes, but not as established fact, but as a
comparison exercise to show what conclusions science can produce with
evidence and what evidence there really is for the bible version. If done
properly I think every child will make up their own mind and (I am sure)
vote for the "right" one. It's the "if done properly" bit which is the
showstopper. 

-- 
Tim C.

The message 
from Jane Gillett  contains these words:

> In article ,
>    Janet Baraclough  wrote:
> > The message <1tonjlyulh11r$.1oimolaju3yoa.dlg@40tude.net>
> > from "Mike.. .  ."  contains these
> > words:

> > What chance bringing
> > > modern education to the Middle East when even in UK 50% of people
> > > want the
> > > biblical version of science taught in schools. :-(  

> >     Where did you get that UK stat?  I've never heard of anyone in the
> > UK, calling for  creationism to be taught 
> > in UK schools.

> They don't need to. UK children are brought up with the story of God
> creating the earth in seven days. 

 You'll find far more children know about dinosaurs, than believe in
six-day creation .  

>It may not be presented as proven fact
> but the story is still very much part of our culture.

   So is the Virgin Birth and Resurrection. That does  not mean that
either bible story is taught as factual human biology
 in the science curriculum in UK schools.

 

     Janet

In article ,
   Tim C.  wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:57:58 +0000, Mike.. .  . wrote in post :
> <news:lpney4wr5k0z$.20yf64xpd2i4.dlg@40tude.net> :

> > Following up to Jane Gillett 
> > 
> >> They don't need to. UK children are brought up with the story of God
> >> creating the earth in seven days. It may not be presented as proven fact
> >> but the story is still very much part of our culture.
> > 
> > according to the torygraph about half of parents want that taught in
> > parallel to Darwin etc. and I suppose it is in RE. It would be nice to see
> > the actual question that was asked.

> if it was worded the right way eve I would say yes. I'd like to see it
> included in science classes, but not as established fact, but as a
> comparison exercise to show what conclusions science can produce with
> evidence and what evidence there really is for the bible version. If done
> properly I think every child will make up their own mind and (I am sure)
> vote for the "right" one. It's the "if done properly" bit which is the
> showstopper. 

I agree. Teach children what conclusions science has reached from what
evidence and also what our culture teaches and how that has developed over
the years.

However, I don't think the culture stories can really be presented in a
scientific approach. 

Science is the study of how things behave. In order to know how they behave
you have to be able to perceive them** and AFAIK we cannot perceive God.
Neither can we perceive, nor infer, from evidence that we <can> perceive,
that the universe was created in 6 of our days. Presumably "day" is a term
meaning a period, possibly "days" are merely sequential periods in context
of our culture.

Science uses the discipline of collecting information from life, forming a
mental "model" of how the item in question behaves and comparing the
results obtained from the model with results  obtained from real life. If
they agree, you have a valid working model <within the range of
environments for which the model was tested; outside that range you cannot
claim that the model is valid.> So if we cannot perceive certain items then
science simply cannot address them. AFAIK there is no evidence of the
biblical sequence of creation, other than "heaven and earth" being created
before anything on earth (logical at least) so there does not seem to be a
scientific basis for that as a working model. It could be helpful to use
the development of the 6-day creation idea to show children how it came to
be so strongly held within the Christian (and Jewish? Other?) culture.

Of course, current scientific discipline assumes that you can take a
"deterministic" approach to scientific investigation ie (roughly) that the
relationship between a cause and an effect is always the same in the same
circumstances; quantum investigations are throwing doubts on that so it's
not clear what new discipline science is going to be based on.

Cheers
jane

**Detect them directly or infer them from the behaviour of things which you
<can> perceive. Example: we cannot see an electric current; we infer its
presence from heating (heating element), from force on a magnet
(instruments) or even, in the past, from the twitching of a frog's leg
muscle.

-- 

Jane Gillett   :   j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk   :   Totnes, Devon.

In article ,
   Janet Baraclough  wrote:
> The message 
> from Jane Gillett  contains these words:

> > In article ,
> >    Janet Baraclough  wrote:
> > > The message <1tonjlyulh11r$.1oimolaju3yoa.dlg@40tude.net>
> > > from "Mike.. .  ."  contains these
> > > words:

> > > What chance bringing
> > > > modern education to the Middle East when even in UK 50% of people
> > > > want the
> > > > biblical version of science taught in schools. :-(  

> > >     Where did you get that UK stat?  I've never heard of anyone in the
> > > UK, calling for  creationism to be taught 
> > > in UK schools.

> > They don't need to. UK children are brought up with the story of God
> > creating the earth in seven days. 

>  You'll find far more children know about dinosaurs, than believe in
> six-day creation .  

Believe? Yes. That's probably true. But they <know> about the 6-day
creation (yes - God rested on the seventh didn't he?). When I was a child I
<knew> about Father Christmas. I cannot remember ever <believing in him but
I went along with the game because that was what you did at Christmas and
it was an enjoyable game to play.

> >It may not be presented as proven fact
> > but the story is still very much part of our culture.

>    So is the Virgin Birth and Resurrection. That does  not mean that
> either bible story is taught as factual human biology
>  in the science curriculum in UK schools.

No. I'd be surprised if there was any scientific evidence either way for
the virgin birth still in existance now. We still have the story put
forward every year though; it is only questioned infrequently. Some people
believe it - after all, if a god makes the rules it's not that great a leap
to believe that the same god <could> break the rules - but I don't think
most do now. 

If you think of the early development of the Christian church you can see
how it <could> have come about. The Jewish society in which Christianity
developed was a patrilinial society; power passed from father to son. If
the Christian church was emphasising a father/son relationship between God
and Jesus then it wasn't really helpful to have a flesh-and-blood father
about so a belief in a virgin birth would have been convenient. Anyway,
women are still told even today "You are honoured" in some words or other
when some man wants to mate and she may not be so keen; I doubt if that has
changed much over the centuries. Weren't Roman soldiers billeted in that
part of the world then?

Jane

>  

>      Janet

>

-- 

Jane Gillett   :   j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk   :   Totnes, Devon.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:55:18 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett wrote in post :
<news:50b55ad26cj.gillett@higherstert.co.uk> :

> Weren't Roman soldiers billeted in that
> part of the world then?

I assume you have the scene in Life Of Brian n mind where the mother tells
Brian who his real father was.  :-)

-- 
Tim C.

Jane Gillett  wrote:
> When I was a child I
> <knew> about Father Christmas. I cannot remember ever <believing in him but
> I went along with the game because that was what you did at Christmas and
> it was an enjoyable game to play.

Oh I like that idea.  I've never really got my head around the whole
believing or not thing, and now I've got kids of my own I find it even
more confusing.  But that is a nice way of thinking about it!

Janet Baraclough wrote:
> The message 
> from Dave  contains these words:
> 
>> At lunch time, I was in a pub, in a caravan park in Portsmouth. (I live 
>> in Preston, Lancs.) I had a very good conversation with two men and I 
>> mentioned the fact that recent history is not on the school syllabus any 
>> more and that I wanted to convey what went on during WWII to our g 
>> children. 
> 
>    That may be true of their school, but not generally. Many schools do
> " living memory"
> projects in which kids  record the memories and personal stories of
> older family and locals,
> about bombing,  evacuation,  rationing,  and much else; aspects of war
> which a child can  grasp better than battles.
> Very recently, here,  a school brought its pensioner "evacuees" back to
> revisit the place the whole school had been evacuated to; and
> brought with them, current pupils at the school. Learning history from
> those who lived it!
> 
>     Here's  something you might like to show your grandchildren
> 
> http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/Britain.html

Many thanks for that link Janet.

The only thing the school taught them was about the poppy and they 
researched that at half term last year when they stayed with us.

My wife was heavily involved with the Royal British legion and knew 
where to point them, on the web, for answers to their home work. (She 
was the women's section Standard Bearer and treasurer.)

My interest in the war gas generated by the BBC film The Gathering 
Storm, starring Albert Finney. I believe that a sequel to this was 
transmitted this week, called Into the storm, which I missed recording.

Aren't speel chuckers strange things? Mine wanted to change your name 
into  plowsharers.

Dave

Dave  wrote:
> I believe that a sequel to this was 
> transmitted this week, called Into the storm, which I missed recording.

Have you checked iPlayer?

The message 
from Dave  contains these words:

> Aren't speel chuckers strange things? Mine wanted to change your name 
> into  plowsharers.

   :-)   Try using an English spellchecker; I think yours is American.
  
   Mrs Ploughsharer

"Janet Baraclough"

>   :-)   Try using an English spellchecker; I think yours is American.
>
>   Mrs Ploughsharer

Don't think so.  We barely know plowshare, let alone Ploughshare or 
Baraclough.

The message 
from "Giusi"  contains these words:


> "Janet Baraclough"

> >   :-)   Try using an English spellchecker; I think yours is American.
> >
> >   Mrs Ploughsharer

> Don't think so.  We barely know plowshare, let alone Ploughshare or 
> Baraclough. 

  Americans   know "snowplow". and "plow the earth. ". Plow is the
standard American spelling of  English plough.
  Ploughshare is a part of a plough. 

   In the US, Baraclough is pronounced to rhyme with plough/plow. In the
UK it's pronounced Baracluff . 

  Which just makes it all the more surprising plum duff isn't spelled
plum dough.

   Janet

Janet Baraclough wrote:
> The message 
> from Dave  contains these words:
> 
>> Aren't speel chuckers strange things? Mine wanted to change your name 
>> into  plowsharers.
> 
>    :-)   Try using an English spellchecker; I think yours is American.
>   
>    Mrs Ploughsharer

No, it is definately british  :-(
It took me several weeks to get thunderbird to conform with it, let 
alone down load and use it :-(

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:10:42 +0100, Tim C. wrote:

> luding one or two keelless canal narrowboats, imagine going to France
>> under fire in one of those (at 4 mph) I assume they were diesel not horse
>> drawn ones?
> 
> 5000 sea-horses? Sort of like an aquatic Charlie and the Giant Peach. But
> much less fun.

i reckon more than 5000!
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 02:34:22 GMT, Janet Baraclough wrote:

>>>    Where did you get that UK stat?  I've never heard of anyone in the
>>> UK, calling for  creationism to be taught 
>>> in UK schools.
> 
>> torygraph, I pray you are right :-)
> 
>    I can't find such a reference in the Telegraph, do you have one?

no, I was just reading it
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email

"Dave"  ha scritto nel messaggio news:sZGdnfz-

> No, it is definately british  :-(
> It took me several weeks to get thunderbird to conform with it, let > 
> alone down load and use it :-(

Why so?  Mive Firefox gave me a choice of British English or US Engliah or 
Italian immediately.  The fact that I chose Italian explains some of what 
you think I've said.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:33:38 GMT, Janet Baraclough wrote in post :
<news:31303030393032394AF45DF266@zetnet.co.uk> :

>   Which just makes it all the more surprising plum duff isn't spelled
> plum dough.

maybe it was.   :-)

-- 
Tim C.

Following up to Tim C. 

> If you believe the world (in the broadest sense) was created by (a) god, 
> then you can apply good scientific principles to find out and confirm the 
> beauty of your god's creation. Many great scientists were religious people, 
> searching for just that. 
> 
> That's not the same as taking the bible saying it's the truth and then 
> bending your science to fit the bible's "facts".

anglicans and others seem happy to withdraw from biblical assertions that
have been superseded by better scientific theories. It seems those type of
assertions are still widely believed in countries without good education
and, oddly, in the US. (I'm hoping the Torygraph report on UK was wrong).
-- 
Mike... .  .   .    .  
Spanish food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/espania.htm"
remove clothing to email