X-No-Archive: yes


According to a report by the Independent on saturday, the Met Police - along 
with some other Police forces - have agreed to furnish 'sniffer' dogs with 
*bootees*  that will be placed onto the paws of dogs when entering 'certain' 
homes to alleviate the issue of transgressing certain beliefs and ideology 
when dealing with certain religious adherents.
One is drawn into concluding the reference is for those muslims that hold 
strong religious conviction.
I wonder how much further we are to travel in accommodating the 
superstitious beliefs of people and whether, or not, this is already a step 
(pun warning...) to far..
Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to establish 
whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and ask 
for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might have.......



Mark

"mark"  wrote in message 
news:9KydnSvgD6Z4YuzVnZ2dnUVZ8qfinZ2d@bt.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
> According to a report by the Independent on saturday, the Met Police - 
> along with some other Police forces - have agreed to furnish 'sniffer' 
> dogs with *bootees*  that will be placed onto the paws of dogs when 
> entering 'certain' homes to alleviate the issue of transgressing certain 
> beliefs and ideology when dealing with certain religious adherents.
> One is drawn into concluding the reference is for those muslims that hold 
> strong religious conviction.
> I wonder how much further we are to travel in accommodating the 
> superstitious beliefs of people and whether, or not, this is already a 
> step (pun warning...) to far..
> Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to establish 
> whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and 
> ask for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might 
> have.......
>
>
>
> Mark
>
Our difficulty in going down this line is that atheists tend to be 
relatively free from absurd superstitious beliefs (a welcome consequence of 
atheism) and might not want to put themselves forward as  holding such 
beliefs.
>

On Jul 7, 4:37 am, "mark"  wrote:

> Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to establish
> whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and ask
> for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might have.......
>
> Mark

I highly doubt if any of "we" hold such delusional superstitions or
beliefs

But I will admit that our English Springer is currently wearing a
boot, not to protect any religious shrine, but to keep her from
licking a "hot spot" on her paw.'

A three legged dog walks into a saloon, orders a drink and loudly
announced the following: "I'm aiming for a showdown with that low down
bounty hunter who shot my Paw!"

On Jul 7, 6:37 am, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> According to a report by the Independent on saturday, the Met Police - along
> with some other Police forces - have agreed to furnish 'sniffer' dogs with
> *bootees*  that will be placed onto the paws of dogs when entering 'certain'
> h  omes to alleviate the issue of transgressing certain beliefs and ideology
> when dealing with certain religious adherents.
> One is drawn into concluding the reference is for those muslims that hold
> strong religious conviction.
> I wonder how much further we are to travel in accommodating the
> superstitious beliefs of people and whether, or not, this is already a step
> (pun warning...) to far..
> Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to establishr
> whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and ask
> for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might have.......
>
> Mark

REPLY:  Atheism is also a Religion because it requires Faith in the
unseen allegedly having taken place.  Macro Evolution and personality
from non personality for example.

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  Atheism is also a Religion because it requires Faith in the
> unseen allegedly having taken place.  Macro Evolution and personality
> from non personality for example.

Dave,

This is only the case in your delusions, I'm afraid.

I really can't count the number of times we've had to correct you on 
this...

A-theist = without a belief in a deity

Noting more, nothing less.

Even if you manage to trash the whole of science, then it still 
doesn't enhance your position unless you can provide the supporting 
evidence *for* your position, which you have blatantly refused to do.

And Dave, please have a little humility here and don't slip into 
insisting that you've already provided the evidence. I know that you 
haven't, the others posting here know that you haven't, the casual 
reader of this list can see that you haven't and I'm sure that you 
yourself know that you haven't. Furthermore, we all know the reason 
why! Simply put, because you can't - you don't have any supporting 
evidence. None.

regards, Ian

On Jul 8, 3:12 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > REPLY:  Atheism is also a Religion because it requires Faith in the
> > unseen allegedly having taken place.  Macro Evolution and personality
> > from non personality for example.
>
> Dave,
>
> This is only the case in your delusions, I'm afraid.
>
> I really can't count the number of times we've had to correct you on
> this...
>
> A-theist = without a belief in a deity
>
> Noting more, nothing less.
>
> Even if you manage to trash the whole of science, then it still
> doesn't enhance your position unless you can provide the supporting
> evidence *for* your position, which you have blatantly refused to do.
>
> And Dave, please have a little humility here and don't slip into
> insisting that you've already provided the evidence. I know that you
> haven't, the others posting here know that you haven't, the casual
> reader of this list can see that you haven't and I'm sure that you
> yourself know that you haven't. Furthermore, we all know the reason
> why! Simply put, because you can't - you don't have any supporting
> evidence. None.
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:  Even Dawkins admits that macro evolution has never been seen.
Its a FAITH so its a religion.  Its also a proven impossibility . How
come you follow desperate 19th century 'science'  ?   How do Materials
give personality ?   When have you ever honestly researched the
evidence for a personal Creator , or,  is it automatic that you never
go there ?

In article 
,
 "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  wrote:
> 
> REPLY:  Even Dawkins admits that macro evolution has never been seen.

'Macro-evolution' is a meaningless term probably invented by 
creationists and advocates of intelligent design to confuse people. 
Therefore I'm pretty sure Mr Dawkins 'admitted' nothing of the sort.

Alwyn

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  Even Dawkins admits that macro evolution has never been seen.

Can you provide a quote for this, please? I've read almost every 
work he has written and I've never seen this claim. He has pointed 
out that macro evolution consists of very many small steps over a 
very extended period of time, so you are unlikely to "see it happen".

> Its a FAITH so its a religion. 

Untrue. Faith in a religious context has a meaning that indicates a 
belief for which there is no evidence i.e. "it is a matter of faith".

Evolution is the exact opposite - a science based on observation of 
the evidence.

> Its also a proven impossibility . 

This is untrue - just a creationist lie. Please provide a credible 
reference for this. Don't bother providing references to 
"spontaneous generation" relating to maggots spontaneously 
generating in meat and mice spontaneously generating in corn and mud 
because this is something else completely.

> How
> come you follow desperate 19th century 'science'  ?   How do Materials
> give personality ?

Evolution. Plain and simple.

>   When have you ever honestly researched the
> evidence for a personal Creator , or,  is it automatic that you never
> go there ?

Yes I have - through many years of Sunday school, bible classes and 
weekly religious education lessons in school over an 11 year period 
(age 5 to 16). I asked a lot of questions and got very few answers 
outside of "god works in mysterious ways". I've also asked you (and 
countless other christians) to help by providing some good positive 
evidence that supports the existence of your god - but I've never 
ever seen any.

Logical deduction tells me that with many religions in competition, 
any one with any evidence would parade it in front of all to see as 
the knock-out blow for their faith.

So, your belief is no more than superstition and mythology - a 
belief in fairies.

regards, Ian

The message

from "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  contains these words:

> When have you ever honestly researched the
> evidence for a personal Creator 

I have indeed !  I found there was no credible evidence whatsoever for
any form of deity or creator personal or otherwise.  What I did find was
very prolific evidence that mankind has been a serial inventor of
imaginary deities.
-- 
********
DavidWG
********

In article <HKmdnUFy7KOWVenVRVnygQA@posted.plusnet>,
 Ian Smith  wrote:

> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> > REPLY:  Even Dawkins admits that macro evolution has never been seen.
> 
> Can you provide a quote for this, please? I've read almost every 
> work he has written and I've never seen this claim. He has pointed 
> out that macro evolution consists of very many small steps over a 
> very extended period of time, so you are unlikely to "see it happen".

I think I may have gone too far in claiming that the term 
'macro-evolution' was meaningless.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html>
However, I'm still not convinced that it is a term that Dawkins would 
have answered to.

Alwyn

On Jul 7, 6:52 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> On Jul 7, 6:37 am, "mark"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > X-No-Archive: yes
>
> > According to a report by the Independent on saturday, the Met Police - along
> > with some other Police forces - have agreed to furnish 'sniffer' dogs with
> > *bootees*  that will be placed onto the paws of dogs when entering 'certain'
> > h  omes to alleviate the issue of transgressing certain beliefs and ideology
> > when dealing with certain religious adherents.
> > One is drawn into concluding the reference is for those muslims that hold
> > strong religious conviction.
> > I wonder how much further we are to travel in accommodating the
> > superstitious beliefs of people and whether, or not, this is already a step
> > (pun warning...) to far..
> > Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to establishr
> > whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and ask
> > for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might have......> > Mark
>
> REPLY:  Atheism is also a Religion because it requires Faith in the
> unseen allegedly having taken place.  Macro Evolution and personality
> from non personality for example.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Same stupid DILV crap just on a different stupid DILV day

A challenge which as sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow, you will
evade
Name EVEN one person that you've ever convinced to share this
particiuar delusion?

mark wrote:

>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>According to a report by the Independent on saturday, the Met Police - along 
>with some other Police forces - have agreed to furnish 'sniffer' dogs with 
>*bootees*  that will be placed onto the paws of dogs when entering 'certain' 
>homes to alleviate the issue of transgressing certain beliefs and ideology 
>when dealing with certain religious adherents.
>One is drawn into concluding the reference is for those muslims that hold 
>strong religious conviction.
>I wonder how much further we are to travel in accommodating the 
>superstitious beliefs of people and whether, or not, this is already a step 
>(pun warning...) to far..
>Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to establish 
>whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and ask 
>for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might have.......

This seems to be relevant here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7499248.stm

   "A marriage registrar was harassed for refusing to conduct same-sex
ceremonies, a tribunal has ruled. 
    Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went
against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a "victory for
religious liberty"."

How can requiring someone to do the job they are employed to do be
described as harassment? If someone decides they can't do the job, for
their own personal reasons, then shouldn't they expect to find another
one?

--
Ariel

On Jul 10, 11:10 am, Ariel  wrote:
> mark wrote:
> >X-No-Archive: yes
>
> >According to a report by the Independent on saturday, the Met Police - along
> >with some other Police forces - have agreed to furnish 'sniffer' dogs with
> >*bootees*  that will be placed onto the paws of dogs when entering 'certain'
> >homes to alleviate the issue of transgressing certain beliefs and ideology
> >when dealing with certain religious adherents.
> >One is drawn into concluding the reference is for those muslims that hold
> >strong religious conviction.
> >I wonder how much further we are to travel in accommodating the
> >superstitious beliefs of people and whether, or not, this is already a step
> >(pun warning...) to far..
> >Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to establish
> >whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and ask
> >for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might have.......
>
> This seems to be relevant here:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7499248.stm
>
>    "A marriage registrar was harassed for refusing to conduct same-sex
> ceremonies, a tribunal has ruled.
>     Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went
> against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a "victory for
> religious liberty"."
>
> How can requiring someone to do the job they are employed to do be
> described as harassment? If someone decides they can't do the job, for
> their own personal reasons, then shouldn't they expect to find another
> one?
>
> --
> Ariel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Or the MD who decides he won't deliver babies from unwed maws, or the
pharmacist who won't fill a sciprt for birth control pills to
unmarried women or dispense RU-486, the morning after pill.
I've noticed the latter are ALWAYS men/fundies/
evangelicals...............K

Ken wrote:

>On Jul 10, 11:10 am, Ariel  wrote:
>> mark wrote:
>> >X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>> >According to a report by the Independent on saturday, the Met Police - along
>> >with some other Police forces - have agreed to furnish 'sniffer' dogs with
>> >*bootees*  that will be placed onto the paws of dogs when entering 'certain'
>> >homes to alleviate the issue of transgressing certain beliefs and ideology
>> >when dealing with certain religious adherents.
>> >One is drawn into concluding the reference is for those muslims that hold
>> >strong religious conviction.
>> >I wonder how much further we are to travel in accommodating the
>> >superstitious beliefs of people and whether, or not, this is already a step
>> >(pun warning...) to far..
>> >Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to establish
>> >whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and ask
>> >for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might have.......
>>
>> This seems to be relevant here:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7499248.stm
>>
>>    "A marriage registrar was harassed for refusing to conduct same-sex
>> ceremonies, a tribunal has ruled.
>>     Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went
>> against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a "victory for
>> religious liberty"."
>>
>> How can requiring someone to do the job they are employed to do be
>> described as harassment? If someone decides they can't do the job, for
>> their own personal reasons, then shouldn't they expect to find another
>> one?
>>
>> --
>> Ariel- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Or the MD who decides he won't deliver babies from unwed maws, or the
>pharmacist who won't fill a sciprt for birth control pills to
>unmarried women or dispense RU-486, the morning after pill.

Exactly. It seems some people think their religious rights are greater
than other people's non-religious rights. 

>I've noticed the latter are ALWAYS men/fundies/
>evangelicals...............K

Certainly some people are more fanatical about this than others.

--
Ariel

X-No-Archive: yes


"Ariel"  wrote in message 
news:pfoc74571u7vasl7v0are2le1s1jq8kgra@4ax.com...
> Ken wrote:
>
>>On Jul 10, 11:10 am, Ariel  wrote:
>>> mark wrote:
>>> >X-No-Archive: yes
>>>
>>> >According to a report by the Independent on saturday, the Met Police - 
>>> >along
>>> >with some other Police forces - have agreed to furnish 'sniffer' dogs 
>>> >with
>>> >*bootees* that will be placed onto the paws of dogs when entering 
>>> >'certain'
>>> >homes to alleviate the issue of transgressing certain beliefs and 
>>> >ideology
>>> >when dealing with certain religious adherents.
>>> >One is drawn into concluding the reference is for those muslims that 
>>> >hold
>>> >strong religious conviction.
>>> >I wonder how much further we are to travel in accommodating the
>>> >superstitious beliefs of people and whether, or not, this is already a 
>>> >step
>>> >(pun warning...) to far..
>>> >Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to 
>>> >establish
>>> >whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and 
>>> >ask
>>> >for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might 
>>> >have.......


>>Or the MD who decides he won't deliver babies from unwed maws, or the
>>pharmacist who won't fill a sciprt for birth control pills to
>>unmarried women or dispense RU-486, the morning after pill.

> Exactly. It seems some people think their religious rights are greater
> than other people's non-religious rights.


Aha...... there's the crux...... is it not..?
People with a superstitious belief seem to think that their ideas, based 
upon some irrational notion,  are important enough to superceed the social 
and community adhesion that we wish to prevail.
How on earth have we reached a point where this religious rubbish actually 
impinges upon the structure of our lives...??
To be brutally honest.. we need laws to safeguard the belief system of those 
with non beliefs...!!    Not the other way round.
This is the whole difference between personal faith.... and religion .. 
which organises those personal faiths.
Why, oh why, oh why does religion just believe *it|*  has the right to be 
anywhere, voicing notions about anything purely on the irrational basis of a 
belief and superstition...?
When.. and how,  will it ever stop..?


Mark

On Jul 10, 2:35 pm, "mark"  wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Ariel"  wrote in message
>
> news:pfoc74571u7vasl7v0are2le1s1jq8kgra@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken wrote:
>
> >>On Jul 10, 11:10 am, Ariel  wrote:
> >>> mark wrote:
> >>> >X-No-Archive: yes
>
> >>> >According to a report by the Independent on saturday, the Met Police> >>> >along
> >>> >with some other Police forces - have agreed to furnish 'sniffer' dogs
> >>> >with
> >>> >*bootees* that will be placed onto the paws of dogs when entering
> >>> >'certain'
> >>> >homes to alleviate the issue of transgressing certain beliefs and
> >>> >ideology
> >>> >when dealing with certain religious adherents.
> >>> >One is drawn into concluding the reference is for those muslims that
> >>> >hold
> >>> >strong religious conviction.
> >>> >I wonder how much further we are to travel in accommodating the
> >>> >superstitious beliefs of people and whether, or not, this is already a
> >>> >step
> >>> >(pun warning...) to far..
> >>> >Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to
> >>> >establish
> >>> >whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and
> >>> >ask
> >>> >for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might
> >>> >have.......
> >>Or the MD who decides he won't deliver babies from unwed maws, or the
> >>pharmacist who won't fill a sciprt for birth control pills to
> >>unmarried women or dispense RU-486, the morning after pill.
> > Exactly. It seems some people think their religious rights are greater
> > than other people's non-religious rights.
>
> Aha...... there's the crux...... is it not..?
> People with a superstitious belief seem to think that their ideas, based
> upon some irrational notion,  are important enough to superceed the social
> and community adhesion that we wish to prevail.
> How on earth have we reached a point where this religious rubbish actually
> impinges upon the structure of our lives...??
> To be brutally honest.. we need laws to safeguard the belief system of those
> with non beliefs...!!    Not the other way round.
> This is the whole difference between personal faith.... and religion ..
> which organises those personal faiths.
> Why, oh why, oh why does religion just believe *it|*  has the right to be
> anywhere, voicing notions about anything purely on the irrational basis of a
> belief and superstition...?
> When.. and how,  will it ever stop..?
>
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

All religions are outmoded concepts today.
Perhaps they were needed long ago to "explain" away unknown events
events back when a superstitious populous lived in hovels or caves, to
keep the hoi polloi under their thumb and to maintain a feudal-like
social classes.
Today science can explain truth instead of accepting religious fairy
tales.
But today we still have these fundy religious fanatics shooting
abortion doctors, religious fanatics blowing themselves up in the name
of allah, not to mention our money grubbing tax-free tele-evangelicals
looting little old ladies so they can keep up payments on their
houses, limos, planes, and hookers

On Jul 9, 5:19 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> On Jul 8, 3:12 am, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > REPLY:  Atheism is also a Religion because it requires Faith in the
> > > unseen allegedly having taken place.  Macro Evolution and personality
> > > from non personality for example.
>
> > Dave,
>
> > This is only the case in your delusions, I'm afraid.
>
> > I really can't count the number of times we've had to correct you on
> > this...
>
> > A-theist = without a belief in a deity
>
> > Noting more, nothing less.
>
> > Even if you manage to trash the whole of science, then it still
> > doesn't enhance your position unless you can provide the supporting
> > evidence *for* your position, which you have blatantly refused to do.
>
> > And Dave, please have a little humility here and don't slip into
> > insisting that you've already provided the evidence. I know that you
> > haven't, the others posting here know that you haven't, the casual
> > reader of this list can see that you haven't and I'm sure that you
> > yourself know that you haven't. Furthermore, we all know the reason
> > why! Simply put, because you can't - you don't have any supporting
> > evidence. None.
>
> > regards, Ian
>
> REPLY:  Even Dawkins admits that macro evolution has never been seen.
> Its a FAITH so its a religion.  Its also a proven impossibility . How
> come you follow desperate 19th century 'science'  ?   How do Materials
> give personality ?   When have you ever honestly researched the
> evidence for a personal Creator , or,  is it automatic that you never
> go there ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well well.
You're back, STILL ignoring my list of questions yet you don't shirk
from asking more of your own
Why it that?
Are you afraid that someone might think less of you?
If you're worried about that possibility, don't no would think any
less of you

BTW--Do you intent to post proof of your Dawkin's assertion or is this
just another one in a long list of your lies?
Sandy

X-No-Archive: yes


"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-916CFC.13550109072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article
> ,
> "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  wrote:
>>
>> REPLY:  Even Dawkins admits that macro evolution has never been seen.
>
> 'Macro-evolution' is a meaningless term probably invented by
> creationists and advocates of intelligent design to confuse people.
> Therefore I'm pretty sure Mr Dawkins 'admitted' nothing of the sort.

It is, or at least, was first,   used by scientists alwyn but like many 
issues, the creationists have 'seized' the term for their own..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html


Here, for the benefit of dilv are the usual links that destroy his dreams 
however....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html


But we know dilv is not here for debate.  He lets go with utter rubbish at 
times which does approach dishonesty and blatant lies, sadly.
It seems dishonesty is not part of the absolute morality he wishes everyone 
to keep..
His other strategy, falsely, is to re-assert the same thing over and over 
again in the minute hope it will become true because it's been said so many 
times..!


Mark

In article ,
 "mark"  wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes

Why didn't you take my advice and put this line in your headers, if you 
must have it, rather than pollute your message with it? Or doesn't 
Outlook Express give you that facility?

> His other strategy, falsely, is to re-assert the same thing over and over 
> again in the minute hope it will become true because it's been said so many 
> times..!

On the contrary, it is a very effective technique, well known to 
advertisers: saturate the media with your message, and it will get 
through. Dave and Pahu may not be having much success with the denizens 
of this newsgroup, but in the general population there are far more 
evolution-sceptics than there used to be; in fact, worldwide, they seem 
to be in the majority. Steve Jones has reported that students are now 
asking to be excused his lectures on evolution because it goes against 
their convictions, which never used to happen before.

Alwyn

The message 
from Alwyn  contains these words:

> On the contrary, it is a very effective technique, well known to 
> advertisers: saturate the media with your message, and it will get 
> through. Dave and Pahu may not be having much success with the denizens 
> of this newsgroup, but in the general population there are far more 
> evolution-sceptics than there used to be; in fact, worldwide, they seem 
> to be in the majority. Steve Jones has reported that students are now 
> asking to be excused his lectures on evolution because it goes against 
> their convictions, which never used to happen before.

The technique is also much used by religions.  The Nicene creed for
instance contains a series of statements all of which are matters of
faith not fact and the idea is that if you repeat the creed sufficiently
often you might eventually believe that the statements are all true! 

-- 
********
DavidWG
********

X-No-Archive: yes


"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-8EB9EA.10164311072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article ,
> "mark"  wrote:
>
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Why didn't you take my advice and put this line in your headers, if you
> must have it, rather than pollute your message with it? Or doesn't
> Outlook Express give you that facility?


My goodness alwyn..
I have it for a number of reasons and it is a standard 'tag' for non 
archiving in google.  It doesn't stop it being archived elsewhere but there 
we go..
I'm surprised it seems to so irritate you.  Does the way dilv posts'  also 
irritate...?
Unless you know otherwise, I do not think OE gives me the opportunity to 
place it in the headers....



Mark

In article ,
 "mark"  wrote:
> 
> "Alwyn"  wrote in message 
> news:alwyn-8EB9EA.10164311072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> > In article ,
> > "mark"  wrote:
> >
> >> X-No-Archive: yes
> >
> > Why didn't you take my advice and put this line in your headers, if you
> > must have it, rather than pollute your message with it? Or doesn't
> > Outlook Express give you that facility?
> 
> My goodness alwyn..
> I have it for a number of reasons and it is a standard 'tag' for non 
> archiving in google.  It doesn't stop it being archived elsewhere but there 
> we go..
> I'm surprised it seems to so irritate you.  Does the way dilv posts'  also 
> irritate...?
> Unless you know otherwise, I do not think OE gives me the opportunity to 
> place it in the headers....

It makes you look n00bish, and when I quote you, I have to edit that 
line out.

You use Micro$oft software which is brain-dead and does not allow the 
user to do the most basic customisations. However, here's a tip:
<http://www.helpwithwindows.com/windows95/oe-24.html>

Alwyn

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:16:46 +0100, Alwyn  wrote:

>In article ,
> "mark"  wrote:
>
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>Why didn't you take my advice and put this line in your headers, if you 
>must have it, rather than pollute your message with it? Or doesn't 
>Outlook Express give you that facility?
>
>> His other strategy, falsely, is to re-assert the same thing over and over 
>> again in the minute hope it will become true because it's been said so many 
>> times..!
>
>On the contrary, it is a very effective technique, well known to 
>advertisers: saturate the media with your message, and it will get 
>through. Dave and Pahu may not be having much success with the denizens 
>of this newsgroup, but in the general population there are far more 
>evolution-sceptics than there used to be; in fact, worldwide, they seem 
>to be in the majority. Steve Jones has reported that students are now 
>asking to be excused his lectures on evolution because it goes against 
>their convictions, which never used to happen before.

Fail them.

>Alwyn

On Jul 11, 2:16 am, Alwyn  wrote:
> In article ,
>
>  "mark"  wrote:
> > X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Why didn't you take my advice and put this line in your headers, if you
> must have it, rather than pollute your message with it? Or doesn't
> Outlook Express give you that facility?
>
> > His other strategy, falsely, is to re-assert the same thing over and over
> > again in the minute hope it will become true because it's been said so many
> > times..!
>
> On the contrary, it is a very effective technique, well known to
> advertisers: saturate the media with your message, and it will get
> through. Dave and Pahu may not be having much success with the denizens
> of this newsgroup, but in the general population there are far more
> evolution-sceptics than there used to be; in fact, worldwide, they seem
> to be in the majority. Steve Jones has reported that students are now
> asking to be excused his lectures on evolution because it goes against
> their convictions, which never used to happen before.
>
> Alwyn

Neither Dimwit or Palu have ever had any successful converts to their
continuing and oft repeated delusions

X-No-Archive: yes



"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-AEACD6.12234411072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article ,
> "mark"  wrote:


>> > Why didn't you take my advice and put this line in your headers, if you
>> > must have it, rather than pollute your message with it? Or doesn't
>> > Outlook Express give you that facility?

>> My goodness alwyn..
>> I have it for a number of reasons and it is a standard 'tag' for non
>> archiving in google.  It doesn't stop it being archived elsewhere but 
>> there
>> we go..
>> I'm surprised it seems to so irritate you.  Does the way dilv posts' 
>> also
>> irritate...?
>> Unless you know otherwise, I do not think OE gives me the opportunity to
>> place it in the headers....


> It makes you look n00bish, and when I quote you, I have to edit that
> line out.

Why...?  What purpose is served by editing it out anyway...?
I'm not sure about you, but usually I trim stuff I reply to where I can and 
if possible.
A bigger irritation for me is when one hits 'reply'  to certain posters and 
*their* post remains without indents/fletches making the whole thing 
entirely incomprehensible as it is not clear who said what...


> You use Micro$oft software which is brain-dead and does not allow the
> user to do the most basic customisations. However, here's a tip:
> <http://www.helpwithwindows.com/windows95/oe-24.html>

Well thanks for that.
It is a workaround for sure but it's a bit of fluffing about where as 
normally, I just hit 'insert' from my toolbar..
You are about the first person in a very, very long time to even mention 
this little irritation - even though it is an accepted step to assist in the 
reduction of spam (not to mention making it difficult for cyber stalkers to 
follow you around... something I once had)

As for microsoft.. I couldn't comment....!


Mark

"Alwyn"  wrote in message 
news:alwyn-F6BC6F.19370409072008@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article <HKmdnUFy7KOWVenVRVnygQA@posted.plusnet>,
> Ian Smith  wrote:
>
>> IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > REPLY:  Even Dawkins admits that macro evolution has never been seen.
>>
>> Can you provide a quote for this, please? I've read almost every
>> work he has written and I've never seen this claim. He has pointed
>> out that macro evolution consists of very many small steps over a
>> very extended period of time, so you are unlikely to "see it happen".
>
> I think I may have gone too far in claiming that the term
> 'macro-evolution' was meaningless.
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html>
> However, I'm still not convinced that it is a term that Dawkins would
> have answered to.
>
> Alwyn

It is of course certain that said Dawkins would merely sigh at the question 
as to whether he had 'seen macro-evolution'.  It's a bit like saying that 
'even Einstein admitted that he had never seen gravity'.

It is certainly true that just about everybody in the world has seen 
evidence of macro-evolution, just as they have seen evidence of gravity.

However there is the question of interpretation.  If we see a wonder of 
nature, such as a rainbow, some people want to understand what made it so 
and others want it to be an inexplicable miracle.

The latter type of person is a rich source of adulation and money for those 
who want it, and is also a position easily adopted by people who want easily 
adopted positions.  Other such positions are 'I think it should be left to 
the market to decide', immediate withdrawal to claiming freedom of speech in 
any discussion, 'Why do you hate ........', and 'Is that all you've got?'.

"Ken"  wrote in message 
news:68e3e997-6a55-4306-b1ad-a19be06cde64@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 11:10 am, Ariel  wrote:
> mark wrote:
> >X-No-Archive: yes
>
> >According to a report by the Independent on saturday, the Met Police - 
> >along
> >with some other Police forces - have agreed to furnish 'sniffer' dogs 
> >with
> >*bootees* that will be placed onto the paws of dogs when entering 
> >'certain'
> >homes to alleviate the issue of transgressing certain beliefs and 
> >ideology
> >when dealing with certain religious adherents.
> >One is drawn into concluding the reference is for those muslims that hold
> >strong religious conviction.
> >I wonder how much further we are to travel in accommodating the
> >superstitious beliefs of people and whether, or not, this is already a 
> >step
> >(pun warning...) to far..
> >Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to 
> >establish
> >whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and 
> >ask
> >for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might have.......
>
> This seems to be relevant here:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7499248.stm
>
> "A marriage registrar was harassed for refusing to conduct same-sex
> ceremonies, a tribunal has ruled.
> Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went
> against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a "victory for
> religious liberty"."
>
> How can requiring someone to do the job they are employed to do be
> described as harassment? If someone decides they can't do the job, for
> their own personal reasons, then shouldn't they expect to find another
> one?
>
> --
> Ariel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

<Or the MD who decides he won't deliver babies from unwed maws, or the
pharmacist who won't fill a sciprt for birth control pills to
unmarried women or dispense RU-486, the morning after pill.
I've noticed the latter are ALWAYS men/fundies/
evangelicals...............K >

What I have noticed actually is that such stories are  fabrications, (or, 
more usually, complete distortions) like the EU demanding straight bananas.

Jesus's father was a carpenter so it is not surprising that he made some toy 
birds, out of clay we are told.  But then they magically twittered and flew 
about.  The strength of this sort of thing is exemplified by the fact that I 
remember the story at least as well as those in the main bit of the Bible 
though I only heard it once.  These days they always seem to need to be 
about 'a tribunal' to make them credible, which in truth is completely 
unnecessary.

A clerk in my office had a gripe and phoned the Daily Mirror once.  He was 
pleased it got in the paper, a bit disillusioned by the fact that he didn't 
get sacked, and most of all put out by the fact that the story as printed 
bore no relation at all to what he told them.  (He had offered to share his 
job with a homeless person and the story printed was that most of the public 
servants had so little work to do that if there was any they shared it out 
evenly.  This was the Thatcher days of course.)

On Aug 25, 12:40 pm, "John Brockbank"  wrote:
> "Ken"  wrote in message
>
> news:68e3e997-6a55-4306-b1ad-a19be06cde64@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 11:10 am, Ariel  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > mark wrote:
> > >X-No-Archive: yes
>
> > >According to a report by the Independent on saturday, the Met Police -
> > >along
> > >with some other Police forces - have agreed to furnish 'sniffer' dogs
> > >with
> > >*bootees* that will be placed onto the paws of dogs when entering
> > >'certain'
> > >homes to alleviate the issue of transgressing certain beliefs and
> > >ideology
> > >when dealing with certain religious adherents.
> > >One is drawn into concluding the reference is for those muslims that hold
> > >strong religious conviction.
> > >I wonder how much further we are to travel in accommodating the
> > >superstitious beliefs of people and whether, or not, this is already a
> > >step
> > >(pun warning...) to far..
> > >Thoughts turn to those of us who are atheists that might wish to
> > >establish
> > >whether certain factors or behaviour might offend our (non) beliefs and
> > >ask
> > >for similar actions be taken to encompass any ideas we might have.....> > This seems to be relevant here:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7499248.stm
>
> > "A marriage registrar was harassed for refusing to conduct same-sex
> > ceremonies, a tribunal has ruled.
> > Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went
> > against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a "victory for
> > religious liberty"."
>
> > How can requiring someone to do the job they are employed to do be
> > described as harassment? If someone decides they can't do the job, for
> > their own personal reasons, then shouldn't they expect to find another
> > one?
>
> > --
> > Ariel- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> <Or the MD who decides he won't deliver babies from unwed maws, or the
> pharmacist who won't fill a sciprt for birth control pills to
> unmarried women or dispense RU-486, the morning after pill.
> I've noticed the latter are ALWAYS men/fundies/
> evangelicals...............K >
>
> What I have noticed actually is that such stories are  fabrications, (or,
> more usually, complete distortions) like the EU demanding straight bananas.
>
> Jesus's father was a carpenter so it is not surprising that he made some toy
> birds, out of clay we are told.  But then they magically twittered and flew
> about.  The strength of this sort of thing is exemplified by the fact that I
> remember the story at least as well as those in the main bit of the Bible
> though I only heard it once.  These days they always seem to need to be
> about 'a tribunal' to make them credible, which in truth is completely
> unnecessary.
>
> A clerk in my office had a gripe and phoned the Daily Mirror once.  He was
> pleased it got in the paper, a bit disillusioned by the fact that he didn't
> get sacked, and most of all put out by the fact that the story as printed
> bore no relation at all to what he told them.  (He had offered to share his
> job with a homeless person and the story printed was that most of the public
> servants had so little work to do that if there was any they shared it out
> evenly.  This was the Thatcher days of course.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From the US..........http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?
contentId=139338

Like Washington’s pharmacy board, states have been struggling with how
to balance the rights of patients to get access to Plan B and the
rights of health care providers to follow their religious or moral
convictions.

Pharmacists have lost their jobs in Illinois, Texas and Wisconsin for
their unwillingness to dispense emergency contraception. Wal-Mart, the
nation’s largest retailer, reversed policy and began stocking the
morning-after pill nationwide in March after state regulators in
Illinois and Massachusetts ordered pharmacies to carry the drug.

Four states – Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota – have
enacted “conscience clauses” that specifically protect pharmacists who
choose not to dispense emergency contraception