GarthP2000

Speaking of the 64 bit environment, can 32 bit apps work in 64 bit? Or what would it take to make them work on a 64 bit Windows system?

By and large, Bingo!! And now, like you, I just can't take to that type of doctrine either, and I've been taking that kind of doctrine for decades now, so I think that I have a better idea of where I'm coming from in that respect than Geisha or RainbowsGirl have any idea about. A lot better. And if their 'god' can't deal with it without going thru a 'send them to hell/outer regions/whatever' routine, ... well, it doesn't say much for his holiness now, does it. <_< :lol: "Hey No God! Yeah dude, I'm talking to ya!" Good one, Abi. That made my day. :)

Me thinks that Rainbow Girl is angry for some reason. ... Sounding upset today? So not having a relationship with God now becomes the ultimate, infinite sin!!, huh? ... Wow!! :unsure: Ya know, when I usually think of the meaning and understanding of the word 'sin', I usually think of associated and related concepts like, 'immoral', 'unethical', 'vile', 'wrong', and the like attributes that depict, ... ohh what's the word I'm looking for, ... Oh yeah, ... evil! (And as you probably know, a *lot* of Christians think this way too. <_< ) A person becoming evil , and that for no better reason than not having a relationship with your God, huh? I mean, that's what it would have to boil down to, wouldn't it? We're freekin' evil. Have you ever *asked* anyone of us evil people _why_ we no longer/have ever wanted any relationship with this deity of yours? ... Huh? Have you? ... Or have you just _presumed_ (assisted by the unquestionable dictates of scripture, of course) why us evil people have rejected God, and that we did so in such a prideful and capricious manner? The answers might surprise you. I know it did me when I was first getting to know various atheist individuals. And there was a helluva lot more to it than this same ol' tired yarn about how they simply don't want to submit to any Higher Authority and wanting to "be their own gods". Really!

Why do I get the impression that that statement has all the feel of a John Wayne one-liner? "Be careful there p-i-l-grim, or else I'll waste my time on ya!"

(((snorts))) <_< Please tell me that you're not seriously proposing that 'God gene' crap, are you, Abi? For one thing, ... where is it? Have they found the location of this supposed gene yet? You'd figure that once they have the genome mapped, they'd be able to find it. Yet Another Example of a rather false and desperate attempt to make science palatable to people who treat religion like it's itself a science.

I just love faith-based responses like this, as it clearly demonstrates a total ignorance that many theists have re: atheists. I too, used to have such a viewpoint re: atheists. ... Until I actually _meet_ and _got_ _to_ _know_ the aforementioned 'immoral'/'amoral' atheists, and something called reality gave me a serious bitchslap upside the head! I know that P-Mosh dealt with this lame issue already, but I felt I just had to respond (Yet Again) to this loon idea that atheists somehow lack a moral center and/or are fighting/dancing against any 'reality for a moral law', and that for no better reason than that they reject the idea/concept of God. And throwing out Bible Scriptures to ((cough)) 'prove' this does absolutely _nothing_ to make real said loon idea. There are many times when blind loyalty to religious beliefs fail you, and this is clearly one of them. <_<

I've been playing around with Windows 7 for, ohh, about a week or so now, and I gotta say, ... I'm impressed, ... so far. I'm approaching this with a good deal of caution, as I would with any future operating system upgrade/purchase; particularly since my experience with the infamous Windows ME. THAT experience cost me a hard drive, and I was *not* a happy camper. Not by a long shot. Only Windows 2000 restored my faith in Micro$oft. (Such as that is) So far, Windows 7 has been working like a champ. One of a couple of minor quirks I've come across is where I activate the sleep mode (which itself works quickly), and about 10-20 seconds later, the PC pops back on, and I haven't even moved the mouse. One suggestion I would make to Microsoft in that respect is to have an option to 'wake' the PC by keystroke. As far as application performance, I'm installing and trying out my apps, and again so far, so good. :) Why, I just might starting to use Windows 7 for some serious work! Oh, by the way, it's the Windows 7 Ultimate version that I have, which includes all the Aero effects. But I'll keep you all here posted on my progress. Good thing that it's going to last till August 1st. Gives me a little more than 6 months to try it out. And if this stability and all the goodies work out as it looks, I'll definitely be upgrading to Windows 7 when it becomes available.

If anything, the following part from a previous post here illustrates _perfectly_ but one reason why I walked away from the worship of this Abrahamic deity: (My comments in bold) ((shakes my head)) Tsk, tsk, tsk. ... Self-exaltation to the extreme. I have seen the ultimate of Hollywood celebrity primma donnas who come nowhere _near_ the self-centeredness that is plainly exhibited here by said deity. ... Nowhere near. Another clue as to why this kind of deistic self-centeredness is not worthy of respect and honor (IMO) is look at what happens to those who do not share and participate in the 'party' of this adulation of God. Read about what happens to said 'vile and evil people' in all the associated scriptures of said deity. It ain't pretty. Its one thing to be proud of your work and achievements. And even to show them off and such. It's all part of being a craftsman, a designer, a builder, etc. I know that there are plenty of times where after a hard day's work being put into web design, I'm proud of my work, and I show it to others. But what is described in the quoted section above is w-a-a-y-y over the top. Goes w-a-a-y-y past being proud of his work and achievements. ... Uummm, one clue to this is, again, how the unbelievers/doubters/those who walk away are treated. It would be like if I show off a web site creation of mine to someone, that person goes "Ehhh." <_<, flips my work off, and walks away, ... and because of that, I pour gasoline all over him and set fire to him, all while rabidly screaming epitaphs and curses at him. Ummm, I don't know about _you_, but that kind of reaction ain't exactly ... moral. .... .... Knowwhatamean?! :unsure:

... and the following like replies.Ahh yes. Your proof. ... 'Proof' of witnesses, based on, ... the scriptures and other writings by followers who already believe in said beliefs. Which is based on believing the verbal accounts of earlier followers. Which is based ... catch my drift?. But all based on the accounts of those who already believe. What is missing here? Independent testimony, records, accounts, etc. of those who haven't already pledged their lives to Christianity to begin with, and that based soly on faith. ... Kinda like getting independent accounts of what was going on in TWI outside of the starry-eyed, loyal accounts of their followers. ... You know. A little bit of objectivity and independent verification. Show us something that is _outside_ of scripture and other writings from the loyal-till-I-die followers, and then maybe we'll have something viable. Ok?

Sounds to me like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Ie., the 'civilizing' of the hellfire and damnation punishment for those who do not believe. Ie., "You don't _really_ burn in hellfire, you are just simply 'cast off out of His presence'. ... There now, that isn't really that bad, is it?". And yet, it is still inflicted upon those who do no more wrong than not believe in a god, and don't believe for many reasons that go well beyond simply 'shaking their fist and refusing to bow down before a sovereign deity.' Reasons that often wind up being quite valid in the mind of the skeptic. And yet, because they have these reasonings, they are regarded as nothing more than 'wicked, vile people who obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ' and are dismissed w/o a 2nd thought. Why can it not be where God can unmistakeably, with total proof, without any room for doubt whatsoever, show himself as a Supreme Being? Sorry, but this argument of "Well, they will just harden their hearts and not believe anyway" just doesn't fly. Hell, even the notion of "prove that God exists AND that he is indeed righteous" is regarded as distasteful and wicked to many believers, and yet such a notion is based upon a solid, logical, and reasonable basis, and that reasoning often arrived at because of the multitude of personal abuses, violence, and destruction at the hands of the same 'righteous believers' of said god. The Enlightenment period is a classic object lesson that clearly illustrates this. And given said examples that result in such 'e-v-i-l reasonings', I can easily see why the 'take it on faith, ... or else!' just isn't good enough anymore to believe in the supernatural world. I mean, if this Superior Being feels the need to threaten people with the Ultimate Punishment for not believing in Him, ..... ..... doesn't say much for said deity's 'righteousness and holiness' now, does it. <_<

... and why is it that they would do the bunny hop, ehhh? What? Disco ain't good enough for them?

The only weirdo I follow is myself, thank you very much. That way, I know how weird I can be.

Let me ask you this then. You keep mentioning the lack of facts to back up the testimony. Well, what (in your opinion) would constitute the needed facts to back the testimony? Would corroborating testimony of like abuse suffice? Of Wierwille's attitudes regarding those who openly complained about said treatment? Of his "all the women in the kingdom belonging to the king" and like teachings that related to this kind of abuse? And other related facts? See, I can see your need for facts to back up the accusation (Really, I do), _particularly_ if said accusations came from isolated sources or sources who not only knew each other, but had a high likelihood of cooperating with each other in order to trash Wierwille's reputation. BUT, it's a different story altogether when there are hundreds, if not thousands of similar testimonies, _most_ (if not all) of which are given independently and from a 1st hand experience, much like any rape/sexual abuse victim would. "First hand accounts are disputable ask any law enforcement officer , they must be tempered with facts." Again, see above regarding the sheer number of independent witnesses. Again, check with any prosecuting attorney, particularly ones dealing with sex crimes, as regards the number of witnesses against Weirwille as mentioned in Greasespot. I also find it damning that _none_ of the Weirwille family, nor TWI has _ever_ came forward with any defamation of character/libel/slander lawsuits against VPW's accusers. And suits like that are easier to win, since they are not determined in criminal court. ... Now why do you suppose that is, hmmm? <_< And frankly, I would trust a jury consisting of Weirwille's accusers _far_ more than a jury filled with his apologists (hint hint), ... whether I was a defendant or accuser.

And speaking of juries and persons in related areas (ie., lawyers, judges, and the like), in many (if not all) of the cases/situations of the alleged rapes/sexual abuses in TWI (since you and I know that is what we all here are alluding to), verbal/visual witnesses (mainly the victims themselves) _have been_ regarded as valid and 'documentable' sources that have been validated claims, enough to make a conviction stand. You show any lawyer/prosecuting attorney all the verbal/eye witnesses illustrated here on Greasespot, and ask them if they have a solid enough case to present to a jury, and I'd be willing to bet even $$$money$$$ that _all_ of them would respond with a resounding "Yes!" You, on the other hand, have failed _miserably_ to prove to any of us here why all the claims of rape/sexual abuse are without merit (and not meeting the legal standard of proof), your claims of them "not being backed up by facts" notwithstanding. ... Totally. Hell, and I'm not even an attorney. (Are you?) But I do know, that if I were sitting on a jury of my peers, and I was presented the testimony presented here on GS, I would convict. ... in a heartbeat.

(Smikeol's expected response ...) ... you mean there aren't black helicopter's hovering over my apartment?? :blink:

Mark, You are about to embark on an endless journey, a journey that will get you nowhere fast, ... and yet take an almost endless time to realize this. ... A journey where no matter what argument/question/challenge/conclusion you set forth (and no matter how successful, logically/biblically speaking) to Mike, he will always, ... _always_ find a way to argue around it, and a lot of his arguments will be totally out to lunch. And this journey will show no signs of him giving up, ... at all. (For further verification of this, just ask Raf. He tried this same approach too. And failed. ) And this journey is called ... The Smikeol Zone. Mike's and his precioouussss!

((Passing my hand over my head, and making an airplane-flying-overhead sound)) "Not many people, only a few hundred that I've contacted over the past ten years and readers of GreasSpot have ever heard it, and far fewer believe it." ... Ohhhh, ... namely yourself. And ONLY yourself.

Point received, Mark, but ya gotta admit. The way you posted what you did, coupled with Penn's non-funny way of putting his view, seemed put in a serious way to me. Then again, you just might be getting really good with the dry humor there. Keep up the good work.

True, so true! And this feeling is totally different than TWI's "Burn the Chaff" day. Remember those folks? They tried to use that section in Acts (Ch. 19, is it? I don't feel like looking it up myself) to justify that mentality. Gawd, all we needed then was a bunch of Stormtrooper uniforms, and we were all set for Wierwille's Fourth Reich.

Marky, The "Sorry, no sale dude." _was_ figurative, and frankly I think you know that, particularly if you read the rest of my post. Oak had it correct. BUT, in case the meaning was somehow lost on you (what, bad morning w/o your cup o' coffee?) it basically means that I do not accept Penn's reasoning (from the 3:00 marker on) regarding those who push their beliefs upon others, especially the "push you away from being hit by a car" mentality as a reason on why they are 'good people'. Clear as mud now? <_<

Mark, Uummmm, ... no. Sorry, no sale dude. The Christian proselytizer might 'really, really, really' believe what he's saying, and he might even be a nice guy and all, but being pushy with his religion (ie., speaking it more than once after being turned down) crosses the line. That was one of the biggest things I hated about going WOW. Penn's example about 'believing that you were going to be hit by a truck unless he steps in and tackles you' doesn't fly, particularly if their ain't no truck to begin with. False dilemma, my friend, false dilemma. As far as someone continues to 'pray for you' even if you decline it crosses no one's lines, _so long as the prayer doesn't keep sticking it in your face about it. Best example for Christians to bring people into the fold (that is, those who decide to), is to live a moral/ethical life above the rest, and be that example that clearly demonstrates why Christianity is the 'saving grace' of us all. Simply 'preaching Jesus' ain't gonna cut it. Nor will regarding infidels and other forms of unbelievers a 'bunch of sorry asses', that much is for sure. <_<

No time limit? (Like a couple of months?) If so, .... COOL!

Okay, to any and all IPhone users and masters here: I am having volume control problems on my IPhone. Ie;, I can't hardly hear the person on hte other end of the line, and sometimes that's even with the hands-free speaker turned on. :x And it effects my ring sound as well. How in the dickens do you solve said problem? I spent $400 ((pricey mo' fo', ain't it?)) on buying it, and I'm not looking forward to having that money go to waste. And I hope I don't have to go the route of this kind of 'alternative' either: http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/04/flickr-find...hone-amplifier/ ... BUT, I just might.

Groucho, There is a difference (Yes Virginia, really there is) between a group that is closed to/for certain people, and an abusive group (often referred to as a 'cult') that controls and demeans people. Examples of such 'closed' groups: 1) private clubs 2) high school/family reunions 3) commercial establishments where you have to pay $$$ to get in and so on. That's not to say that there cannot be abuses in said groups, but that they're private does not make them so in and of itself. Also, knowing (allow me to put that in emphasis, ... knowing) John and Hope as I do (as well as many others here), your rather weak and lame attempt to put them in the same category as 'abusive cults' is just that, ... ... weak and lame. Chill bro, ok? Oh, and Happy New Year!