OT Excellent "How To" Column
 

You gotta love Mark Morford, talk about hitting the nail
squarely on the head:

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

And while you're at it, be sure to check out Frank Schaeffer
on a recent Rachel Maddow show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8

"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Excellent "How To" Column
 

On Sep 25, 7:30*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
You gotta love Mark Morford, talk about hitting the nail
squarely on the head:

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

And while you're at it, be sure to check out Frank Schaeffer
on a recent Rachel Maddow show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8

"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."

--
Ken Fortenberry

Check out Blumenthal's new book which tracks the major money flows
that sponsor the assualt on science, rationalism, and American
Democracy that has underpinned the radicalization of American Torys
over the last 3 decades. Such a kook show would even be funny were it
not for the deadly intent of these folks to fund and lay the
groundwork for a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. Blumenthal tracks
the money flows to groups like Seattle's Discovery Institute (The main
Tory cell assigned to harass and politicize biotech), and folks like
Rev. Dodson and his legions of neo-Brownshirts and thuggish mobbers.

Dave

OT Excellent "How To" Column
 

On Sep 25, 12:59*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Sep 25, 7:30*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

You gotta love Mark Morford, talk about hitting the nail
squarely on the head:

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

And while you're at it, be sure to check out Frank Schaeffer
on a recent Rachel Maddow show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8

"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."

--
Ken Fortenberry

Check out Blumenthal's new book which tracks the major money flows
that sponsor the assualt on science, rationalism, and American
Democracy that has underpinned the radicalization of American Torys
over the last 3 decades. Such a kook show would even be funny were it
not for the deadly intent of these folks to fund and lay the
groundwork for a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. Blumenthal tracks
the money flows to groups like Seattle's Discovery Institute (The main
Tory cell assigned to harass and politicize biotech), and folks like
Rev. Dodson and his legions of neo-Brownshirts and thuggish mobbers.

Dave

You guys are nuts. Psycho.

Stick to fly fishing here.

OT Excellent "How To" Column
 

David F wrote:
DaveS wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You gotta love Mark Morford, talk about hitting the nail
squarely on the head:
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
And while you're at it, be sure to check out Frank Schaeffer
on a recent Rachel Maddow show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8
"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."

Check out Blumenthal's new book which tracks the major money flows
that sponsor the assualt on science, rationalism, and American
Democracy that has underpinned the radicalization of American Torys
over the last 3 decades. Such a kook show would even be funny were it
not for the deadly intent of these folks to fund and lay the
groundwork for a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. Blumenthal tracks
the money flows to groups like Seattle's Discovery Institute (The main
Tory cell assigned to harass and politicize biotech), and folks like
Rev. Dodson and his legions of neo-Brownshirts and thuggish mobbers.

You guys are nuts. Psycho.

Stick to fly fishing here.

That's not the way things work around here, David.

You can post about fly fishing if you wish, in fact I would
encourage you to do so, but it's not cricket to tell other
folks what they should post.

Just out of curiosity, which of the three did you find to be
most "nuts, psycho", the Morford column, the Maddow interview
or Blumenthal's new book ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Excellent "How To" Column
 

On Sep 26, 7:53*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
David F wrote:
DaveS *wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You gotta love Mark Morford, talk about hitting the nail
squarely on the head:
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
And while you're at it, be sure to check out Frank Schaeffer
on a recent Rachel Maddow show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8
"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."

Check out Blumenthal's new book which tracks the major money flows
that sponsor the assault on science, rationalism, and American
Democracy that has underpinned the radicalization of American Tories
over the last 3 decades. Such a kook show would even be funny were it
not for the deadly intent of these folks to fund and lay the
groundwork for a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. Blumenthal tracks
the money flows to groups like Seattle's Discovery Institute (The main
Tory cell assigned to harass and politicize bio-tech), and folks like
Rev. Dodson and his legions of neo-Brownshirts and thuggish mobbers.

You guys are nuts. Psycho.

Stick to fly fishing here.

That's not the way things work around here, David.

You can post about fly fishing if you wish, in fact I would
encourage you to do so, but it's not cricket to tell other
folks what they should post.

Just out of curiosity, which of the three did you find to be
most "nuts, psycho", the Morford column, the Maddow interview
or Blumenthal's new book ?

--
Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just ignore this troll. I cannot recall him ever posting anything on
fishing, or anything other than he said he was voting for Bush in the
LAST election, and how he hated Obama. Mostly monosyllabic mouth-
farts. This guy makes one appreciate the relative rationality of our
resident ROFF Tories.

Dave

OT Excellent "How To" Column
 

On Sep 26, 4:55*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Sep 26, 7:53*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:



David F wrote:
DaveS *wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You gotta love Mark Morford, talk about hitting the nail
squarely on the head:
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
And while you're at it, be sure to check out Frank Schaeffer
on a recent Rachel Maddow show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8
"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."

Check out Blumenthal's new book which tracks the major money flows
that sponsor the assault on science, rationalism, and American
Democracy that has underpinned the radicalization of American Tories
over the last 3 decades. Such a kook show would even be funny were it
not for the deadly intent of these folks to fund and lay the
groundwork for a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. Blumenthal tracks
the money flows to groups like Seattle's Discovery Institute (The main
Tory cell assigned to harass and politicize bio-tech), and folks like
Rev. Dodson and his legions of neo-Brownshirts and thuggish mobbers.

You guys are nuts. Psycho.

Stick to fly fishing here.

That's not the way things work around here, David.

You can post about fly fishing if you wish, in fact I would
encourage you to do so, but it's not cricket to tell other
folks what they should post.

Just out of curiosity, which of the three did you find to be
most "nuts, psycho", the Morford column, the Maddow interview
or Blumenthal's new book ?

--
Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just ignore this troll. I cannot recall him ever posting anything on
fishing, or anything other than he said he was voting for Bush in the
LAST election, and how he hated Obama. Mostly monosyllabic mouth-
farts. This guy makes one appreciate the relative rationality of our
resident ROFF Tories.

Dave

The problem is that conservatism, and some if not most of Christianity
in America, has been hijacked by idiots. Of course there have been
(and still are) intelligent, gentle, considered, literary, and decent
Christians who have/had somewhat "fundamentalist" beliefs. Two of my
favorite are Chesterson and Lewis.

Likewise, conservatism is not synonymous with retardation as it would
currently appear. I still sheepishly cling to a conservative ideal
that has NOTHING in common with the current brand in vogue. I find
myself in a position where I must in good conscience support positions
with which I am uncomfortable. I do this in order to help prevent the
outcome that the current brand of conservatives might succeed and thus
prolong the intellectual dark and cold winter they have manufactured.
It is a scary world for a conservative of my way of thinking.

In addition to the barbaric behavior of the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Becks
and their ilk, conservatism also seems unwilling to face issues such
as protecting the environment. I am not one to easily believe in
conspiratorial motives, but it almost seems to me that the controlling
apparatus has the singular purpose of protecting corporate interests.
This would explain many of the positions taken and it is not hard for
me to convince myself of this possibility. In fact, it is easier for
me to believe that it is only my naivete that prevents me from
accepting this as a reality based in fact. It is not outside the
ideology of true conservatism to believe that wise stewardship of
natural resources is a worthy purpose.

The pieces Ken linked were interesting to me. A debate on Biblical
history is perhaps beyond the bounds of roff, but suffice it to say
that the statement the Bible is a "... completely manufactured, man-
made piece of heavily politicized, massively edited, literary myth-
making" is an oversell of a valid position Morford could have made a
better way. Very few scholars would agree with the extent of that
statement. The statement he could have made, with which I would
agree, is that the Bible is twisted to validate behavior that even if
you believe in the message that a Christ figure was trying to convey,
is contradicted in most every way. It is also applied selectively and
in obvious contradiction to irrefutable scientific facts.

This kind of ridiculous thinking portrayed by intellectually feeble
Christians (I am prepared for the post where someone says feeble-
mindedness is a necessary condition for belief in Christianity) has in
fact been recently on display on a thread in roff. I did not feel
like wading in to that conversation.

Probably way more than anyone cares to read so I will stop. Obviously
my Saturday night is less than adventure packed!

OT Excellent "How To" Column
 

On Sep 26, 9:45*pm, Family-Outdoors wrote:
On Sep 26, 4:55*pm, DaveS wrote:





On Sep 26, 7:53*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

David F wrote:
DaveS *wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You gotta love Mark Morford, talk about hitting the nail
squarely on the head:
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
And while you're at it, be sure to check out Frank Schaeffer
on a recent Rachel Maddow show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8
"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."

Check out Blumenthal's new book which tracks the major money flows
that sponsor the assault on science, rationalism, and American
Democracy that has underpinned the radicalization of American Tories
over the last 3 decades. Such a kook show would even be funny were it
not for the deadly intent of these folks to fund and lay the
groundwork for a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. Blumenthal tracks
the money flows to groups like Seattle's Discovery Institute (The main
Tory cell assigned to harass and politicize bio-tech), and folks like
Rev. Dodson and his legions of neo-Brownshirts and thuggish mobbers.

You guys are nuts. Psycho.

Stick to fly fishing here.

That's not the way things work around here, David.

You can post about fly fishing if you wish, in fact I would
encourage you to do so, but it's not cricket to tell other
folks what they should post.

Just out of curiosity, which of the three did you find to be
most "nuts, psycho", the Morford column, the Maddow interview
or Blumenthal's new book ?

--
Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just ignore this troll. I cannot recall him ever posting anything on
fishing, or anything other than he said he was voting for Bush in the
LAST election, and how he hated Obama. Mostly monosyllabic mouth-
farts. This guy makes one appreciate the relative rationality of our
resident ROFF Tories.

Dave

The problem is that conservatism, and some if not most of Christianity
in America, has been hijacked by idiots. *Of course there have been
(and still are) intelligent, gentle, considered, literary, and decent
Christians who have/had somewhat "fundamentalist" beliefs. *Two of my
favorite are Chesterson and Lewis.

Likewise, conservatism is not synonymous with retardation as it would
currently appear. *I still sheepishly cling to a conservative ideal
that has NOTHING in common with the current brand in vogue. *I find
myself in a position where I must in good conscience support positions
with which I am uncomfortable. I do this in order to help prevent the
outcome that the current brand of conservatives might succeed and thus
prolong the intellectual dark and cold winter they have manufactured.
It is a scary world for a conservative of my way of thinking.

In addition to the barbaric behavior of the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Becks
and their ilk, conservatism also seems unwilling to face issues such
as protecting the environment. *I am not one to easily believe in
conspiratorial motives, but it almost seems to me that the controlling
apparatus has the singular purpose of protecting corporate interests.
This would explain many of the positions taken and it is not hard for
me to convince myself of this possibility. *In fact, it is easier for
me to believe that it is only my naivete that prevents me from
accepting this as a reality based in fact. *It is not outside the
ideology of true conservatism to believe that wise stewardship of
natural resources is a worthy purpose.

The pieces Ken linked were interesting to me. *A debate on Biblical
history is perhaps beyond the bounds of roff, but suffice it to say
that the statement the Bible is a "... completely manufactured, man-
made piece of heavily politicized, massively edited, literary myth-
making" is an oversell of a valid position Morford could have made a
better way. *Very few scholars would agree with the extent of that
statement. *The statement he could have made, with which I would
agree, is that the Bible is twisted to validate behavior that even if
you believe in the message that a Christ figure was trying to convey,
is contradicted in most every way. *It is also applied selectively and
in obvious contradiction to irrefutable scientific facts.

This kind of ridiculous thinking portrayed by intellectually feeble
Christians (I am prepared for the post where someone says feeble-
mindedness is a necessary condition for belief in Christianity) has in
fact been recently on display on a thread in roff. * I did not feel
like wading in to that conversation.

Probably way more than anyone cares to read so I will stop. *

One of the most precisely stated and coherent pieces ever posted
here. Food for thought and considered discussion.

And thus, obviously posted in the wrong place.

Obviously my Saturday night is less than adventure packed!-

Adventure being the past tense of ordeal, I'm afraid most people would
agree. I would not.

g.

OT Excellent "How To" Column
 

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:30:07 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

You gotta love Mark Morford, talk about hitting the nail
squarely on the head:

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

And while you're at it, be sure to check out Frank Schaeffer
on a recent Rachel Maddow show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8

"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."

Well, there goes health care reform...

I've always wondered why religion seems to terrify "liberals" and supposed
"intellectuals" so much...

HTH,
R

OT Excellent "How To" Column
 

On Sep 27, 10:45*am, Family-Outdoors wrote:
*A debate on Biblical
history is perhaps beyond the bounds of roff,

NAHAY?

but suffice it to say
that the statement the Bible is a "... completely manufactured, man-
made piece of heavily politicized, massively edited, literary myth-
making" is an oversell of a valid position Morford could have made a
better way. *Very few scholars would agree with the extent of that
statement. *

Very few BIBLICAL scholars, perhaps, but I would bet that a majority
of secular scholars would wholeheartedly agree. "Completely
manufactured" possibly overstates its human origins, but remove the
'word of God' component, and that's all that is left. As for heavily
politicized and massively edited, I'm sure everyone from King James to
Billy Graham would agree to that. All devout biblical scholars I know
(maybe a couple dozen over the years) discuss the importance of
learning the original Greek, or even Aramaic or Hebrew, in order to
undo the effects of editing and linguistic interpretation.

--riverman

OT Excellent "How To" Column
 

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:50:40 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:

On Sep 27, 10:45*am, Family-Outdoors wrote:
*A debate on Biblical
history is perhaps beyond the bounds of roff,

NAHAY?

but suffice it to say
that the statement the Bible is a "... completely manufactured, man-
made piece of heavily politicized, massively edited, literary myth-
making" is an oversell of a valid position Morford could have made a
better way. *Very few scholars would agree with the extent of that
statement. *

Very few BIBLICAL scholars, perhaps, but I would bet that a majority
of secular scholars would wholeheartedly agree. "Completely
manufactured" possibly overstates its human origins, but remove the
'word of God' component, and that's all that is left. As for heavily
politicized and massively edited, I'm sure everyone from King James to
Billy Graham would agree to that. All devout biblical scholars I know
(maybe a couple dozen over the years) discuss the importance of
learning the original Greek, or even Aramaic or Hebrew, in order to
undo the effects of editing and linguistic interpretation.

Well, yeah - I mean, why didn't God just speak in plain ol' English - it would
have made things so much easier...or maybe a .pdf or something - I mean, so, OK,
it wouldn't have done Moses much good, but think of all the recent problems it
would have solved...He would have known that computers were coming, right...?

IAC, the whole idea of "scholars" on either side of (the) "religion" issue(s)
makes no sense. Most folks have no problem when someone says, "I prefer (grape,
apple, strawberry, or whatever) jam/jelly on my PB & J," but if someone says
they prefer (Jesus, Mohammad, or none of the above), all hell breaks
loose...what's so hard to accept about that some folks believe that Jesus was
the son of God, and they are absolutely correct for them, and others believe
that he wasn't, and they are absolutely correct for them. Hey, that's why
there's Gnostic and Vedanta...

HTH,
R



--riverman