...okay, it isn't about OSX, but you can derail this thread that way if you like.

No, what I currently find to be absolutely ridiculous is the way the fight is lining up over the display of the ten commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building. Mind you, I don't have a dog in this fight and really don't give a rat's ass whether or not this violates the first amendment either way, government sponsor of religion or religious free speech. What I do mind is when innocent people are punished. From this CNN article:

Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said one firm contacted about removing the monument has refused to do so, and he urged Moore's supporters to boycott any company that took the job.

"When we discover that (moving) company, I think they're going to be sorry they cooperated with this act," Schenck said.

Are you kidding me? People who are trying to earn an honest buck as movers are going to be boycotted and punished for doing their job? A job that doesn't entail doing anything illegal or immoral? Someone explain this to me. (For you X-critics, you can parallel this with how Apple is forcing OSX upon the creative pros and in effect violating their right to AHIG-based GUI and how the creative pros are boycotting in return.)

For what it is worth, I say keep the commandments, and while we are at it add in a statue of Buddha with his eight-fold path to enlightenment, some pithy messages from the Koran under a painting of Mohammed, a sculptured waterfall with excerpts from the Tao Te Ching, a monument of the Supreme Being Krishna talking with Arjuna with some passages from the Bhagavad-gita, a Druid celestial monument, and maybe even some erotic Tantric scuplture. Shit, have a frame surrounding a picture of nothing to give a nod toward the godless existential atheists. If we are going to celebrate the people's right to have the law reflect its basis in God and religion, let's go all the way and celebrate all the religions in the society. We are a melting pot after all. Just like Apple should continue to add in the big bouncy icons, colorful GUI, CLI, and every other addition we have seen come with OSX, but also keep the options for many of the features people used in <OS9 as well.

[This message was edited by mithradites on Wed August 27 2003 at 11:55 AM.]

quote:

---

Are you kidding me? People who are trying to earn an honest buck as movers are going to be boycotted and punished for doing their job?

---

This should be good ‘cause I know ol’ thalo and I are 180 degrees apart on this. I think non-violent boycotts and protests are the American Way. Moving that stone could be viewed by some as analogous (but not nearly so severe, of course) to a German company building the barbed wire fences around the prison camps. They’re just making a wall and have no say on what it’s being used for so why hold them responsible?

Let’s put it this way. If social pressures and boycotts are not allowed to have any influence in society then we left to the mercy of the law being 100% correct 100% of the time and honoring it just because “it’s the law.” We become soulless, mindless drones and willing accomplices to government tyranny. If one is using the persuasive techniques of rhetoric in order to affect change – just like we’re doing here at thalo.net – where people are free to decide for themselves what to do, then how can we come down on someone who is using a little good old fashioned rabble-rousing to affect change?

The company who moves the stone is free to portray themselves as martyrs and to make their own case in the court of public opinion. They’ll no doubt get free publicity out of it. And I do mean that persuasion should start and end with rhetoric. If they slander the business, block its driveways with protestors and otherwise make it difficult for them to do their work then they’re acting just like the loony left – the type who put spikes in trees and make noises in the water to scare away the fish because they consider fishing to be evil.

quote:

---

Moving that stone could be viewed by some as analogous (but not nearly so severe, of course) to a German company building the barbed wire fences around the prison camps. They’re just making a wall and have no say on what it’s being used for so why hold them responsible?

---

Not even close. No one's life is endangered by the moving of the monument. In fact, the monument can be displayed elsewhere for people to admire, acknowledge and enjoy, just not in the public arena of the courthouse rotunda as stated by the Federal judge. I am for boycotting companies like Gillette, who abused animals in testing their products, or Union Carbide (or similar companies), who discharged hazardous waste and killed unsuspecting people, or textile companies like Nike, who continue to abuse human rights throughout the world in order to manufacture cheaper products. But boycotting companies who are making an honest buck and doing no harm at all. Please. It isn't even close. And it is shameful. Boycott them for faulty, illegal, or lousy business practices, not because they took a job that rubbed against political rhetoric.

quote:

---

Not even close. No one's life is endangered by the moving of the monument.

---

Oh come on, Darr. That was too easy. It was an analogy. You titled this thread “The height of ridiculousness...” So big deal if I take you twelve steps down the road to what could happen. It’s quite common to get all in an uproar over the burning of books. That’s usually a cut-and-dried enough issue to be “safe” getting all hot and bothered over. But when it comes to moving monuments – whole monuments – it doesn’t tickle the little protest nerve even a little? It doesn’t make you think about what’s next?

quote:

---

In fact, the monument can be displayed elsewhere for people to admire, acknowledge and enjoy, just not in the public arena of the courthouse rotunda as stated by the Federal judge.

---

The Federal judge could be wrong. We’re seeing more and more of this being ruled by edicts from the bench. That’s not the way things were meant to work. That’s why we have legislators. That piece of granite didn’t suddenly wake up and start shouting at people as they walked into the courthouse. It’s been there for some time. So what has changed? What we’re seeing is the true fundamentalist instincts of the far left coming into play. They are the ones right now pushing for the purity of their vision. I think I’ve outlined my feelings about all this over at Shalom Place so I won’t repeat everything here.

quote:

---

I am for boycotting companies like Gillette, who abused animals in testing their products, or Union Carbide (or similar companies), who discharged hazardous waste and killed unsuspecting people, or textile companies like Nike, who continue to abuse human rights throughout the world in order to manufacture cheaper products. But boycotting companies who are making an honest buck and doing no harm at all.

---

Bullshit, Darr. You have just placed yourself as judge, jury and executioner of all things worthy of being protested. I think the proper understanding of the separation of church and state happens to be a serious matter. Today it is pieces of granite in front of a courthouse. What will it be tomorrow? Will little Johnny go to detention because he says, after being a part of a particularly smart double play on the ball field, “God, that was great!”

quote:

---

The Federal judge could be wrong.

---

I think the Federal judge IS wrong. This is a state issue and should not have the involvement of the Federal courts, in my opinion. Let the State Legislature decide on whether it is appropriate or not. Let the State Supreme Court decide if it violates the State's Constitution. It in no way violates the first amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress has done nothing, so it can't be a violation. The only issue I see is whether the monument can be placed by a public servant or citizen on public property without consent of the public. Could I place any item I think reflects the basis of our law in the rotunda? If the answer is no, then obviously there is a limit. Does the judge fall under the purview of that limit? That is what is being decided. Yeah, you can tie free speech into it if you like, but it really doesn't come under free speech. If it did, then I, or any citizen, could pay for a monument and have it placed in the rotunda as an example of what our law is all about.

quote:

---

Bullshit, Darr. You have just placed yourself as judge, jury and executioner of all things worthy of being protested.

---

Nope, you just want to make it seem that way. I said "I am for boycotting...", not "The only things that should be boycotted by anyone are...". I think your right-wing attack-dog mentality clouds your ability to listen and forces you to go for the jugular in everything that clashes with your views, even if it is presented as merely an opposing opinion. Hey, I ain't thalo, I only speak for myself. But I believe this boycott is a sneaky form of squelching, similar to what you opposed over at MFI. The antagonists are feeling impotent over the fact that higher authorities refuse to rule in their favor, and so they go after an easy target and hope to squelch the opposition by targeting innocent peoples' honest livelihoods. Just like was threatened by folks over at MFI. If you can't see that, but instead feel the need to ratchet up the involvement of these poor movers to equate them with actions that in no way are parallel their actions, then so be it. I don't think it serves them, or the cause, any justice at all. It IS ridiculous.

quote:

---

I think the proper understanding of the separation of church and state happens to be a serious matter. Today it is pieces of granite in front of a courthouse. What will it be tomorrow? Will little Johnny go to detention because he says, after being a part of a particularly smart double play on the ball field, “God, that was great!”

---

Yes, a proper understanding. Nowhere in the first amendment does it state that church and state must be separated, it only states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Only later, when Jefferson, as President, wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, did he state his interpretation as "Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." That has then become the new interpretation of the first amendment, but he clearly was wishfully stating that State Legislatures should follow suit. Yet, the first amendment makes it clear that only Congress shall not pass a LAW. Now, I do not know what the Alabama State Constitution says on the matter, and that should be most instructive.

But, to get to your point, I know you like to take things to illogical extremes of what could happen in the entirety of human action, and thus argue your point from there. I tend to work from what I believe is plausible and reasonable, which are of course my own definitions. I'll take the chance that removing the monument from the rotunda to a different commonly accepted location is a perfectly acceptable action, and I will deal with the fallout of Johnny being punished for saying God when, or I should say if, it happens. They are two very different issues, though I see how it serves your purposes to try and link them together in analogy. If illogical extremes work for you in presenting your point, then continue to do so. But it paints the same characteristics on you that you so detest in the "left-wingers". And, I only see such tactics causing further division through both implicit and explicit derision. I merely believe that advocating punishing innocent movers, who are doing their job and trying to earn a living in a trying economy and not forwarding a political agenda, is detestable. It is.

[This message was edited by mithradites on Wed August 27 2003 at 02:27 PM.]

I don't know how I got to be the guy who does a 180 on nonviolent boycotts and protests, but hey.

What I'm for is free friggin' speech. A boycott and a protest can be exercises of free speech.

But going after the movers with threats is evil. Just like going after infopop because you're against what thalo.net has to say would be evil. It's cowardly. It takes attention off the actual issue and discourse, and deflects it.

Expressing where you stand? What you believe in? THAT'S the American way. Protesting the moving is very different from paintbombing or tire-slashing the moving truck.

Boycotting the movers? Hey, go for it, if you think they have an actual philosophical stake in the issue. Chances are they don't. Chances are it's a job. They're not moving the monument because they think it's a bad thing. Putting up posters depicting them as the destroyers of the ten commandments? Sure, it'll get people worked up. You could cause the soft-headed to even vandalize or make threatening phone calls against the moving company, thinking they're the right arm of Jesus or Moses. You can catch guys like the poor movers in the middle, bend them, strongarm them, intimidate them. But that's not the real issue.

The real issue is symbol and emotion, vs. the Constitution. Rational thought, vs. people getting offended and upset. Semiotic overcharge plus political correctness equals conflict. We have a little thing in this country called the separation of church and state. Causes all kinds of holy hell. But unfortunately it's a damn good thing in the long run. However, it's often highly offensive to people who don't believe the two should be separated.

Mixed in with that is the power of symbols. A lot of folks have a tough time with the fact that symbols aren't the thing. And like this whole mess, they end up fighting over symbolic content, instead of using their free speech to access the greater ideas. The hows and whys and wherefores. Stuff like this makes me crazy. It's a friggin' piece of rock, and people will wig out over it because of the charge it's receiving.

People forget that Moses SMASHED the tablets that upon which were written the ten commandments. Written supposedly by the finger of God Himself. You can't get much more charged than that. And Moses chucked them to the ground and they broke. People woke up. It was a symbolic act, very charged, but it said kind of the exact thing that people need to hear right now. This monument wasn't carved by God, it was probably made by a couple of guys in Duluth. And nobody's blowing it up, they're moving it. What's more important, the monument, or the ideas that it conveys? WHERE it's placed? Or again, the ideas it conveys? Will SEPARATING the idea of church and and the idea of the state (a building) spatially negate EITHER of the ideas?

I say no. I say the ideas are alive and well. In this corner, weighing a bajillion bloated pounds, and millenia old... the CHURCH! And in this corner, working on 227 years of bloat, but girded with the belt of freedom and liberty under an amazing document called the Constitution... theeeee STATE! LLLLLLLet's get ready to RUMBLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEE!

This bullshit makes me as nuts as flag burning. It ain't the symbols, ain't the monuments. We need those, they help us through, but there comes a time when we have to remember that WHY they are charged the way they are, is more important than the thing. Get worked up over living by the frikkin' ten commandments. This is a king shit irony moment. You'll have people breaking every one of those commandments before its through, and overthrowing all kinds of constitutional stuff in the emotional heat of the moment.

It's irritating, but you know what? There will be a moment where people will snap out of it and see how completely ridiculous this whole thing is.

In addition:

quote:

---

We're seeing more and more of this being ruled by edicts from the bench. That’s not the way things were meant to work. That’s why we have legislators.

---

Yes, but how is this whole thing not Judge Moore making his own ruling from the bench? Had the Legislature felt it was important for the Courthouse to reflect the Judeo-Christian ten commandments as a basis for the law, they would have had that monument, or a likeness, built into the courthouse. Did the judge ask the Legislature if this was what the Legislature had in mind as a representation of the State's basis of the law? No. If Judge Moore felt it was important for his ability to practice law by those beliefs, and a representation was imperative, it could have been placed in his private office. Instead, it was placed in public. That smacks of political ideology run amuck. Let the Legislature decide how best they want religion to be reflected in the State's laws, not a rogue judge with an axe to grind. Only the Legislature has the power to create and enact laws, and representations of those laws, not a judge. The State Supreme Court Judge is there solely to apply those laws and ensure that they are consistent with the State Constitution. In this act he overstepped his bounds into an act that is for the Legislature, and so he is no better than any other judge passing an edict from the bench.

quote:

---

This is a king shit irony moment. You'll have people breaking every one of those commandments before its through, and overthrowing all kinds of constitutional stuff in the emotional heat of the moment.

---

Like Snobby having the Consitution deleted by the mods at MFI?

Hahahaha, exactly.

Moses smashed the tablets because his people were demonstrating how unworthy they were of the ideas thereon. And I think this is one of those moments where we're demonstrating a similar unworthiness. We're getting caught up in bullshit, and the people at the heart of it with their feelings all hurt, might as well cast themselves a golden calf and sacrifice to it.

.
That religious monument was snuck in, in the dead of night, by a judge who would be more than happy to establish, as one of the courts said in this matter, a Christian theocracy. That is something we always have to be vigilant about in a free society. It is not governmental tyranny to care about that, and it wasn't "fundamentalism of the left" that started it. That is a 180-degree turn from the facts.

Just because some hack political judge thinks God is directing his actions every time he scratches his balls, it doesn't mean it's true. People have a right to express their opinions, short of violence, but these people in Alabama who have ramped up this thing to be a direct attack on God do not share the pluralistic values established in this country long ago. There's too many people in this world today who think they can do anything they can think of as long as they attach the name of God to it.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment applies to the states before any of us were born, so that's the law, whatever contrary opinion any of us may have.

Phil invited me to comment on this at ShalomPlace, and I may do that later. This is a preview!

Markle

Brother thalo said:

quote:

---

I don't know how I got to be the guy who does a 180 on nonviolent boycotts and protests, but hey.

What I'm for is free friggin' speech. A boycott and a protest can be exercises of free speech.

---

Sorry to put words in your mouth, brother thalo. God knows (I mean “goodness knows”) you don’t need any help with that. But we did have a discussion a while back where there was some protesting and boycotting going on and it definitely didn’t sit well with you. Want a link? I’m just too lazy right now to find it.

quote:

---

But going after the movers with threats is evil.

---

Oh yeah, now I remember. It was comments like that. But what about “If you don’t fix OS X then I’m not buying any hardware.” Is that a threat too?

quote:

---

It takes attention off the actual issue and discourse, and deflects it.

---

Ironic, isn’t it, because that’s what this whole issue is all about. We remove certain symbols because they mean things to certain people even though they serve no functional role in effecting the actual separation of church and state except in some people’s minds. As a conservative proponent for a more reasonable, historical and factual definition of that separation you can bet your bottom dollar that I wouldn’t be pleased if they allowed a granite statue of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse while at the same time the justices all around the country were writing laws willy nilly through their judgments. “Oh they sure fucked us with that ruling but lucky we still have that statue sitting there.”

quote:

---

It takes attention off the actual issue and discourse, and deflects it.

---

Agreed, and it’s highly offensive to those who don't believe the separation means the eradication of religion from public life. That wasn’t the intent. It may be what we want now in this century, whether it’s a good thing or not in the long run. But the separation of church and state as interpreted by the left is just not what the founders had in mind. Hey, get a new constitutional amendment passed if you want, but perverting existing laws ain’t the way to get it done. Expect that, yes it is, because they’re doing it now.

quote:

---

And nobody's blowing it up, they're moving it. What's more important, the monument, or the ideas that it conveys? WHERE it's placed? Or again, the ideas it conveys? Will SEPARATING the idea of church and and the idea of the state (a building) spatially negate EITHER of the ideas?

---

Well, of course it’s a done deal for those tablet right now. And I think you hit on a point that I was trying to make about symbols versus the ideas. But there are ideas behind even the removal of symbols and that’s what I’m rebelling against.

quote:

---

That religious monument was snuck in, in the dead of night, by a judge who would be more than happy to establish, as one of the courts said in this matter, a Christian theocracy. That is something we always have to be vigilant about in a free society. It is not governmental tyranny to care about that, and it wasn't "fundamentalism of the left" that started it. That is a 180-degree turn from the facts.

---

I’m with you, Markle. I don’t want a theocracy but neither do I want where we’re heading now.

quote:

---

Just because some hack political judge thinks God is directing his actions every time he scratches his balls, it doesn't mean it's true.

---

Of course it is only the religious among us who have irrational thoughts that then lead to irrational actions. That’s never true of those who DON’T believe (using minds that can’t even begin to be explained by science or normal physicality) in anything outside of themselves. There's a certain inherent irrationality, in my opinion, more so than in any typical religious person, in being an atheist. I don't start with the assumption that religion is illegitimate, but neither do I start with the assumption that any particular religious doctrine is true. But this characterizing people who are religious as "scratching their balls to hear God's word" would then suggest that the wisdom of non-religious people is somehow better and more trustworthy. That simply ain't the case. In fact, one could say that those will a little humility in the face of the unknown and unknowable might make wiser judgments.

I do not want the establishment of any religion in America nor any religious test to hold public office. But neither do I want, or look forward to, the establishment of scientific materialism which is exactly what is happening now. It’s only a short leap to a system of government, not unlike the old Soviet Union, where religion is considered “the opiate of the masses” and all human freedoms then suffer.

quote:

---

People have a right to express their opinions, short of violence, but these people in Alabama who have ramped up this thing to be a direct attack on God do not share the pluralistic values established in this country long ago.

---

That sort of reflects something Darr said. You’re picking and choosing what it is legitimate to get all hot and bothered about. If someone feels like their religion is under attack by the government then they damn well should put up a fuss and have every right to do so. Religion is a legitimate and long-established part of the American way of life.

Hey, I wasn’t born yesterday. Really. I know there are indeed those who would establish a theocracy in American if they could but we’re talking about a very fringe group of people. This characterization is often pulled out for convenience’s sake but rarely, if ever, touches on the real truth.

quote:

---

Phil invited me to comment on this at ShalomPlace, and I may do that later. This is a preview!

---

Hot damn! Ya think it will go the full 12 rounds?

quote:

---

Of course it is only the religious among us who have irrational thoughts that then lead to irrational actions. That’s never true of those who DON’T believe (using minds that can’t even begin to be explained by science or normal physicality) in anything outside of themselves. There's a certain inherent irrationality, in my opinion, more so than in any typical religious person, in being an atheist. I don't start with the assumption that religion is illegitimate, but neither do I start with the assumption that any particular religious doctrine is true. But this characterizing people who are religious as "scratching their balls to hear God's word" would then suggest that the wisdom of non-religious people is somehow better and more trustworthy. That simply ain't the case. In fact, one could say that those will a little humility in the face of the unknown and unknowable might make wiser judgments.

---

Wow, that is a stretch, even for a far right-wing extremist. Markle didn't say anything about "religious people". He explicitly stated that it was a "hack political judge [who] thinks God is directing his actions every time he scratches his balls". It was a comment directed towards one person, not an entire group. Talk about being sensitive. You are acting in the very manner that you descry in left-wing liberals. Just because one might find a single, or a few, religious person(s) acting irrationally does not mean that one finds ALL do so. Nor does it mean that non-religious people, atheists, are exempt from irrational acts. Where is MacsRCool? You are purposefully trying to make overarching extensions where they do not exist in anyone's arguments. You cannot legitimately extend someone's feelings about an irrational act of one religious person to that of the entire group and opposition without crumbling the very base of your argument. Furthermore, there is no irrationality present in either being theistic OR atheistic. Both are founded on surmises and neither can prove themselves, nor disprove the other. There is irrationality when one tries to force one's beliefs on another person or group of people who are unwilling to ascribe to those beliefs. And that irrationality is not exclusive to theists or atheists.

CNN-USA Today-Gallup Poll.

Maybe this is why we live in a Republic. To fend off mob rule.

I think Judge Moore stepped beyond his powers. The installation of the monument is really about the powers of the black robe and how far Judge Moore pushed those powers.

The Bible and hence the ten commandments are used ceremoniously in government. The Presidential Oath is administered by the Chief Justice of the United States. The President-elect places his hand on the Bible, raises his right hand, and takes the Oath as directed by the Chief Justice. The text is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

This comes from (Article II, Section I, Clause 8) of the US Constitution which reads:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

God and the bible are not mentioned but isn't the bible used at the actual ceremony? Does the act of the oath itself implicitly suggest a declaration based on an appeal to God that one will speak the truth? Judge Moore is trying to narrow the definiton even further by associating the law as being based on the Bible. I thought the law was based on the idea's that came out of Athens?

Is it just in the movies or do they really whip out the bible in court for a witness to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Here is a Montana code on swearing in a witness.

Oh wait I forgot.

Mac OS X Rocks baby.

On my way to Shalomplace to read that article. From that preview I know I'll subscribe to each and every word.


(On religious matters I have only one god: Bill Maher.)

I'm with brother mAx. Bill Maher has it so right about religion.

Personally, I think it's one of the biggest con games of all time. Organized religion. It's like organized crime. As you know I'm not against the ideas, or great words from great spiritual people... I'm against downtalking, or taking those ideas and setting up aristocracies and power abuse. Controlling people with fear or threats. Telling them to sit down and shut up and not question anything, but believe because we said so. If a religion's history becomes bathed in blood and ignorance, and its core message was "love thy neighbor as thy self"... maybe people weren't ready for it yet.

The stuff that gets done in the name of God is enough to make baby Jesus cry.

Same with Islam. Maybe people just aren't ready for an egalitarian faith. Another one of those great moments, like the smashing of the tablets, was Abu Bakr words on the death of the prophet, when people were flipping out. Something like: "if anyone among you worshipped Muhammad, know that Muhammad is dead. But for those who worship God, know that He lives, and will never die... Muhammad is only a messenger, and there have been messengers before him."

Moral: we seem to show our true mettle when we get our friggin' priorities straight, and think about what's really important, instead of symbols and figureheads.

I agree, that the monument was built by somebody with a control trip. But he is an American, so he has the right to free speech and religious freedom too. He is a X-Commandment fan? Cool, I say go ahead and erect yourself a monument on your friggin' LAWN. Make a small one and carry it in your pocket and rub it when you're on the bench. There's no law against that. You can be a judge AND a believer, believe anything the hell you want to... as long as it doesn't get in the way of the oath you took to your country. We have the freedom to separate church and state in our own damn selves if we want to.

Using the bible in oaths is interesting. It's a rite of passage. But remember once the person says the oath, they remove their hand from the bible. Also interesting, how so much important stuff is left up to the honor system like that. Personal responsibility, loyalty, telling the truth. When you put your hand on the good book, it's a powerful moment. It's where no government or religion can FORCE you to do anything. The church and state that are so nicely separated both crumble in the face of YOUR honor, YOUR choice to tell the truth. Goverments and religions offer us all kinds of ideas, but at a moment like that, you have to remember that they can only offer. What you decide to take is more important.

Brother Brad,
Yeah man, I say no new hardware for me until they fix the OS. But to me that's like saying I won't fly on a plane with a broken tail and no doors.

I'm not spraypainting "Less is More" on buildings in Cupertino. I'm not threatening Steve Jobs or Apple employees with physical harm, saying they'd better this, or they'd better that. I'm not going to developers and threatening them because they are developing for OS X. I'll complain about piss-poor products, but I never play that stupid guilt by association thing. Never do end runs around the issue to try and strongarm or intimidate. I think the tools of free speech and self expression are enough to get my message across.

I think some people only give up on free speech and turn evil when they think all is lost. That's when they start throwing rocks instead of words. We've seen X-Men who couldn't stick it out in the discourse, turn evil and try to squelch. Because they saw they'd never win against an intractable foe on a level playing field.

If I encite or provoke the Mac Faithful, it's never for anything like "hurt Apple"... nah-ah, it's for stuff like: MAKE OS X BETTER. My rhetoric has never been: hey all you pros, don't give Apple a dime unless they bend to our will. Let's put them out of business. Nope. It's expressing what I THINK. How much I NEED them to be superior. What I'M doing to try and get them to take out a second mortgage on their soul. And letting others make up their own mind how to deal with the problem.

And I've always said the best way to deal with it, is free and open discourse. And complaining. Complain a lot. Talk about what's wrong with the software. And Apple will eventually fix it. Don't complain, crap-settle, and they won't.

Darr said:

quote:

---

Wow, that is a stretch, even for a far right-wing extremist.

---

I feel a bit neglected that you left off "whacko", but I'm listening.

quote:

---

It was a comment directed towards one person, not an entire group. Talk about being sensitive. You are acting in the very manner that you descry in left-wing liberals. Just because one might find a single, or a few, religious person(s) acting irrationally does not mean that one finds ALL do so.

---

Hey, brother Markle and I have a bit of a history and I think I know where he stands. Frankly, I don't mind people pushing back from the other direction. I don't mind them pushing hard. It's his kind of criticism that keeps us sharp. And you can bet your sweet ass that I'm going to pull on the other end of this somewhat mixed metaphor rope and try to keep a balance - or at least make you think.

What we're dealing with (or at least what I think we're dealing with) is twofold. You have comments from the group here who are, more or less, reasonable people (although I think you've bought a bit too much of the second fold coming up) and you have the people, the activists, who are really driving some of these issues and they have opinions on things that would (or should) make your skin crawl. When I'm talking to you I am, admittedly, also addressing the positions they are coming from.

quote:

---

Furthermore, there is no irrationality present in either being theistic OR atheistic.

---

If I didn't completely spell it out, then I will now. Absolute certainty, whether of the theistic or atheistic kind, can lead to all sorts of problems. Often religion, and in certain cases rightly so, is bashed because of this view of religious people being zombies in their beliefs. Well I'm here to tell you and to point out that if this is the case, and if this is potentially harmful, then keep your eyes on the certitude of the left, particularly some of those bringing up these issues of separation.

Brother thalo, I know this whole issue for you is about a more important separation: The separation of crap and AHIGs. You never fail to bring us back to this issue no matter how hard we try.

Just what are these AHIGs you guys keep referring to?

Surely not the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines?!