WordWolf

I had a friend who saw one of the planes hit the building. Was looking in the sky, watched the thing fly, and ram into the building. We spoke at length about it that evening. I was in NYC at that moment, but not at the Battery. So, call the eyewitness a liar if you wish.

We can clearly rule them out both due to them being heftier. No, it wasn't anyone from my lifetime.

For those people who think that the PLAGIARISM stopped with vpw -who plagiarized just about EVERYTHING he ever taught- THIS IS PLAGIARIZED from chris geer. Complete with the plagiarized title. They didn't even bother to change the name. When vpw plagiarized 2 of Bullinger's papers to make "Are the Dead Alive Now?", he at least changed the title. He was lazy enough to keep the question format for it, but he changed the title. They didn't even bother to do that. Oh, but they don't do the harmful things they did before. Yeah, right. If they're doing this, they're still getting away with anything their lawyers say they can still do. The only real changes have been to quiet their lawyers. Outside of twi, I've never heard of a church group who does the right thing on advice of their lawyers, or are less moral and nice than their lawyers.

No. For the record, he's neither the first nor second place-r. How to calculate BMI..... Take the weight in pounds, and multiply it by 703. Then, divide the product by your height in inches (12 inches to the foot), then divide that quotient by your height in inches (yes, a second time.) The result is the BMI. For this round, using a calculator is not cheating, but looking it up still counts as cheating.

Let me check my notes. 1-Correct- Abraham Lincoln, at 6'4". (LBJ was second, at 6'3 1/2".) 2- Correct- James Madison, at 5'4". 3- Correct- William Howard Taft, at 322 lbs/340 lbs, depending on the source. 4- Correct- James Madison, at 122 lbs. 5= Well, I'll call it CORRECT because it was Taft, with a BMI of 42.3. Even Taft's height couldn't shake that. 6- Incorrect. He was pretty lanky, but there were other lean Presidents who had a lower BMI. BTW, I'm showing results that said the lowest was a President whose BMI was 25.3, and there was no way to calculate the BMI of another. That having been said, all that's needed to calculate it is the height, the weight and the formula. The lowest BMI of any President so far was 20.9, once it's actually calculated. So, that just leaves #6 unanswered.

So long as it was presented, and even promoted to a point, but not made mandatory/indoctrination, I think it would help, at least as far as was stated on that page. On paper, I think it is a good thing. In moderation, I think it would benefit society. In practice, if it caught on a lot, I think there would be a rude surprise in that- once it took on FORMAL structures and FORMAL doctrines- it would start to suffer from some familiar problems. I'm well aware there are people who say much the same as this- without any structure to draw from, and live their lives with a view towards making the world a better place. I'm well aware that some of those people are atheists or agnostics. But, it would be INEVITABLE that structures and doctrines would form. It's been that way through all of history, and I would not trust anyone who claimed it was only a possibility. Once those formed, it would become an organization. Once that happened, we would find SOME people using it for their own ends- hypocrites who mouthed its tenets but looked to get what they could from the system, people looking to skim off some money and pocket it, people in it for the authority of the offices, and so on. I think that, for the most part, the ideas are good. I think that, should this gain a lot of popularity, it would replace one set of structures with another one. Eventually, everything someone might complain about if there were a religion would appear- dogmatism, corruption, etc. I'm also aware some people alive now would probably swear up and down such a thing could never, and would never, happen. But then, every group has their fanatics, and fanatics have never been strong on reflection and examining the evidence or their conclusions. So, yes, a positive thing, but overall, a lot less effective than you're thinking.

Romeo + Juliet Vondie Curtis-Hall Die Hard 2

Ok, next one. The category is US history, to be specific, US presidents. Please name which US President was 1) the tallest US President 2) the shortest US President 3) the heaviest US President 4) the lightest US President (based on the Body Mass Index/BMI rating..... who was 5) the fattest US President/President with the highest BMI 6) the leanest US President/ President with the lowest BMI Answer at least 2, and we'll see if we can get all of them filled in.

Eh, "Clueless"???????

IIRC, Joe Maslow arrived just before him, curious about those. I know he got SOME answers. He was also a lot nicer about asking.

We don't have to "look forward" or even SPECULATE as to how such a HYPOTHETICAL society would function. (We can, but we don't have to START there.) I would begin by looking at those cultures where religion can't "dominate cultures"- if only because they are ILLEGAL. Under COMMUNISM, religion is to be stamped out. So, countries like China and the USSR went out to stamp them out en toto. We've had perhaps a century since they did that, so let's look at the results so far. Has either of them shone forth as a haven of mankind's best qualities? Has either been an exemplar of people free of greed, pride, envy, hatred, and so on? Not only is that not the case, but it's even worse. With the "freedom" from religion they have, what have they done with it? Standards of living fell. The have-nots, rather than have a minimum standard of living where they are guaranteed food, a job, and a place to stay, have struggled to survive. We can't find out as many details as we'd like for this discussion, because they clamp down on media and all methods of communication. Disagreements are not allowed, dissent is not allowed. So far, every attempt to make a "secular paradise" has been an attempt to do so through communism, and so far, every attempt to make a "secular paradise" has produced an OLIGARCHY. A handful of the few hold almost all the money and power, a minority with some money and power hold them up and generate technology and some income, and the vast majority of the citizens struggle to put food on the table, and maintain even a MINIMUM standard of living, sharing a tiny place to live. We saw a new word invented- "karoshi." People work themselves TO DEATH trying to provide for their families. In the US, things are bad, but they've never been THAT bad for the people at the bottom- or for so high a percentage of the population. (The richest people anywhere always have a comfortable life, and always will.) Now, the people who defend communism as a THEORETICAL model keep pointing out that those are imperfect examples of Communism. The obvious point, of course, is that mathematics may have ideal concepts, but in the world, we must deal with what we have, which is, real people in real societies. Communism as a concept relies entirely on people- 100% of the people, acting ENTIRELY for the good of the whole of society, and NEVER purely out of self-interest. Can that even work? It hasn't worked yet. I think it's obvious it CAN'T work, because humans will seek self-interest in any place in any time. There will always be a minority seizing all the money and power that they can, and using any pretext to grab it, use it, and keep it. They'll use rhetoric that announces that they CLAIM they are working for the public good even while they line their pockets with money and the workers struggle to figure out where their next meal comes from. ------------------------------------------- Now, if we ignore them and imagine new societies without religion, I direct you back to my first post. Societies will form. People will form strata, Some people will seize power over others. In short, much like we have now, and looking much like we have now, with most differences being cosmetics. There won't be churches, but there will be other sociopolitical, local agencies- philosophy centers, reading rooms, public houses, bowling leagues. People will draw distinctions between themselves and others, no matter how arbitrary the lines. People will define "us" and "them" by some standard or other. People will freely complain about SOME social construct that they claim is universally oppressing people, whatever it is, and other people will disagree with them, saying that construct is helpful. People will argue, yell, and sometimes rattle their sabers and even fight wars. So, really, it would be interesting to see the COSMETIC differences, but the overall societies would develop the same ways, and turn out the same ways.

All messageboards have moderation. Some boards work fine with informal moderation- posters just point out something is wrong, bad, or not allowed, and the posters have the self-discipline to control themselves afterwards. Most boards require at least some moderation, because boards with zero moderation descended into incoherent noise as trolls overran the boards. (We're talking the 1990s, generally.) Since then, there's always someone in charge of making sure things don't devolve so badly that normal posters can't get in a word between 20 pages of trolls flooding the board. If you don't like the way a board is run, make up your own board, and invite who you want. Then you can feel free to snub me or anyone else you don't like because we're not allowed there. You can also just find a different board you like. There's no constitutional right to the GSC. There's also a lot of disagreement on the GSC because there's room for a lot of disagreement on the GSC. If you're getting static from several members, you've actually found something that disparate members can agree upon- even if that something is "you're posting like a jerk." With all the room for disparate opinions here, I think that may be one of very few things where a consensus can be found on the GSC.

I'm surprised that the new guy- the one who objects to moderation of both formal and informal kinds- thinks he's qualified to decide who should and should not come back here. "Hopefully you're so offended you don't come back. Bye bye." "Now, if you're too offended to come back...hint, hint.." Everyone is welcome to post here. Even the obnoxious are welcome to post here, and people with unpopular points of view as well. Keep in mind that posting obnoxiously A) will draw posts of similar tone in reply and B) will sooner or later draw warnings and formal moderation All of which, of course, get used as "evidence" that the person was never treated fairly. "Look how unfairly they treated me." Lots of posters have been allowed to continue posting after having been ASKED NICELY BY THE MODERATORS to behave. Some of those have used that allowance to post twice as obnoxiously on a thread, insult the moderation staff, and complain in general. At that point, the moderators HAVE to pull the plug. I'm being reminded of someone who manufactures a complaint at a nice restaurant so they have an excuse to refuse to leave a tip. If you just don't like it here, you can just stop posting. Go somewhere you like it. Maybe come back and post later, if you like things better some other time. This is the internet in 2025, you can do that.

If it was a personal attack, I would apologize. You might want a slightly tougher skin if you're going to stay on the internet. I stipulated to your premise, and am discussing purely on that basis. The initial post all pointed to one question/topic- what would a world be like, without any religion whatsoever? So, given the forum, I approached this as a sociological discussion, where religion is a socio-political structure and so on. My point remains the same- that a society without certain social and political structures won't have a vacuum. There will be OTHER social and political structures, and they will be used- or misused- in much the same ways. People are people. So, there would be some COSMETIC changes, but society as a whole would be much the same. I didn't even object to the implication that churches. etc. as a whole had rules, etc with negative connotations. It's debatable and largely up to interpretation any way, depending on the group and the practice (some more so, some less so, etc.) I pointed out what any sociology student could tell you- that people organize themselves into groups, and those groups immediately begin to have expectations, and so on. That actually is NECESSARY for social cohesion- and social cohesion keeps societies together. (It can also be dysfunctional, for the insider as well as the outsider.) So, addressing your original point, we wouldn't have big holes in the streets where church buildings are. We wouldn't have dead air time where sermons were, and so on. Society would invent other social groups, and invest political identity, personal identity, community identity, and so on. It sounded to me like you were making a binary division of societies where one side had religion, rules, regulations, and expectations, and the other side which did not... and I've seen implications where that means everything is perfect, at least on paper, once the first side is removed. (Try and stay awake while reading "The Communist Manifesto" for a great example.) It sounded like you might have been getting ready to head in that direction. So, since you sounded like one side had all the rules- with the obvious implication that the other side did not- I pointed out both sides would, and that it might be a surprise if you hadn't looked at it that way. Sometimes it takes looking at the right question to have the right answer. This may come as a shock to you, but that was neither personal nor aimed as an attack. Some of us use that expression with our friends and families. If I thought the point was opaque to you, I would have said so. (It may be a shock, it may not be a shock.... vs "Surprise! Here's how it is...")

See, made the same point without getting political, and thus, avoiding moderation. Seriously, stay off politics. We can go the "reproof" path and ask you nicely, which we're doing, and ask you to police yourself. If that doesn't work, there's always the "thousand stripes" method, and moderation, with or without a heavy hand. Myself, I take you more for a "reproof" kind of fellow than a "thousand stripes entered into him" kind of fellow. That's my opinion, I might be wrong- it's a little soon to tell.

A few of us haven't quite made "senior" yet. To name two, myself and Raf. (We went to the same school.) There's younger posters than us, but not many. Then again, right now there aren't many posters. (Not compared to say, 2001 AD)

"The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations." This may come as a shock to you, but all INSTITUTIONS have expectations, rules and regulations. Communist China and Russia are loaded with them. Removing religion from a society doesn't change that, it just changes WHICH institutions and WHICH expectations, rules and regulations are in effect.

For the sake of this forum, I will examine from the position that all beliefs, including all religious beliefs, have stemmed entirely, 100% from people, with no exceptions. If so, that would mean all the religious beliefs- which people have based things on- would have that origin, as would every other belief upon which things were based. So, to posit a world where some of those beliefs were never developed, the question is, what would such a world be like? We're not imagining a world of magic and dragons here, we're imagining something deterministic and "realistic" (not fantastical.) I would expect it to look almost identical to our world. As has been pointed out, technology may change over time, but man has not changed. Improving technology has made some changes in society possible, but man is still man. We have the printing press, which helped to try to usher in universal literacy (a radical concept for history, and a recent one.) We have the internet, where someone can use that literacy to read things all over the world. We have the potential to have the best-informed Earth population EVER. Do we have it NOW? No, we do not. People go into an echo chamber and don't get impartial, fair and neutral information on things, just a lot of bias confirmation. (Can't blame ALL of that on Facebook, even if they made it easier.) What happened? Technology may have changed, but man has not changed. Hippies tried to eliminate capitalism, and make things free for everyone. It failed miserably. What happened? Man has not changed. MOST of the people went along with it. But it only takes a few freeloaders to ruin things. A minority of people showed up, and sponged off of the hippies, and tried to get everything they could (including "free love.") So, I could see the brands changing- from religious to any other brand. But I'd expect the same problems with a few cosmetic differences. Man has not changed. So, maybe somebody makes their identity in a philosophical group, or a political group, or even their bowling league. But there will be sectarianism, and sabers rattled. People form societies, and take on labels, and take on "who is an outsider", which strengthens group cohesion. That's going to stay the same as long as we HAVE people.

"How can anyone claim that TWI’s doctrines are not based on the bible?" You take a doctrine of twi's, and compare it to what The Bible says. You take what they claim The Bible says and means, and compare that to what it says, and the most sensible take on the meaning. It's the same principle you'd use to compare any doctrine or practice with any document. I'm familiar with what the U.S. Constitution says. I'm willing, at times, to discuss what the most logical interpretations are for what that says, and compare that to what any group has said. (I don't want to do that here and now, partly because it would be wildly off-topic for this thread.)

I've never heard of the ones in Formula 1, Darts, Curling, or Bridge. I have vague recollections of the ones in golf and tennis. I kind-of said "what do baseball and Denny's have in common?" and got there.

Totally. Your turn.

"All freshmen are required to take a humanities course." "What's so bad about that? " "Well the choices are absurd. Listen to this one. 'Humanities 1. Man, society, civilization, and the universe.' How am I supposed to relate to this stuff?" "Just don't talk in class, and they'll think you're one of them." "I'm in college to learn about money, not people." "There's more to life than just getting rich. 'People who need people are the luckiest people in the world.' " "People who have money don't need people." "I know, 'Every cloud has a silver lining.'" "No, silver's down this week. Say 'Every cloud has a zinc lining.'"

"On a dark, desert highway"

"It's a pretty good crowd for a Saturday, and the manager gives me a smile 'cause he knows that it's me that they're coming to see, to forget about life for a while."

Um, they each feature a Grand Slam?????