From: Savageduck on
On 2010-04-22 19:42:42 -0700, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> said:

> On 4/22/2010 9:24 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2010-04-22 18:01:24 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:


>>>>
>>> Allow me to point out that many religious sects don't have as strong a
>>> central leadership as the Catholics, so it is easier for splinter
>>> groups to form whose particular beliefs differ from the original ones.
>>> With the Catholics, there is only one central leader in the Vatican,
>>> so deviation is much more difficult.
>>
>> Tell that to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
>
> Tell what, that the Anglican Church leadership is not as strong as that
> of the Roman Catholic, or that there is only one central leader of the
> Roman Catholics, in the Vatican.

I was refering to the supposed leadership role of Canterbury for the CofE.

Aah! the CofE, & trans-Atlantic Episcopalians, or Catholic light.

> I doubt he'd find either to be a surprise.

Agreed.

> Or are you laboring under the misconception that the Anglican church is
> Roman Catholic?

No, I am the product of an English mother, who had what can only be
described as "social" ties to the CofE, and an American Baptist father
who returned from the Pacific after WWII as a confirmed atheist. As a
child, my mother loosely aimed me at the church and missed.

So I am well aware of the structure and differences between the Roman
Catholic Church and CofE.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6ZKdnQZ4zpgka03WnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4bceed65$1$27721$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:TaydnVY_u-H5B1PWnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:833p8cF5onU2(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hqhncg$75b$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>
>>>>>> You do seem to generalize from only a few instances to "pasting"
>>>>>> your evident low regard for some of those in need to all such. As
>>>>>> I have pointed out before, there will always be exceptions who
>>>>>> may not be worthy of help - but that BY NO MEANS indicates
>>>>>> that most who receive it are not in need of it for basic living
>>>>>> resources, and also use it to the best of their abilities. Few get
>>>>>> rich
>>>>>> on welfare...;-)
>>>>>> --DR
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hey! Show me these, "Most" of whom you speak.....I lived and worked in
>>>>> California for over 40 years, I knew many people who were welfare
>>>>> puppies. I
>>>>> have only known a very few who actually deserved some help from the
>>>>> taxpayers.
>>>>
>>>> You remind me of an old friend. After living for a year in my home
>>>> city he told me was fed up with it and going back to London. The
>>>> reason he gave was that it was a dreadful city, full of unemployed
>>>> benefit cheats who spent all their time working out how to swindle
>>>> more money out of the government. I said I hardly knew any benefit
>>>> cheats. He said yes you do, and named two we both knew. I pointed out
>>>> to him he had introduced me to them.
>>>>
>>>> In other words while he knew loads of benefit cheats, the only ones I
>>>> knew people he'd introduced me to. So it was clear that the question
>>>> wasn't why was the city full of benefit cheats. The question was why
>>>> he knew so many of them :-)
>>>>
>>>>> My own experience tells me that the system is F***** up. The
>>>>> statistics of less than 2% I got from reading about the welfare system
>>>>> in
>>>>> papers and books....I didn't just pull it out of the air.
>>>>
>>>> We have plenty of papers and books that say the same kind of thing
>>>> about the UK. And political parties too. But we also have official
>>>> statistics which show that the truth is quite different.
>>>>
>>>> How do the official statistics match up with these papers and books
>>>> you read?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Chris Malcolm
>>>
>>> I believe I already mentioned that fewer than 2% of those on welfare
>>> have some disability, either physical or mental. But it doesn't
>>> matter.....You are either a believer or you aren't, and there is no way
>>> I am going to change your mind. I go by my own knowledge and
>>> experience.....I "escaped" from California to Oregon 13 years
>>> ago.....Now, I can see Oregon rapidly becoming another California, and
>>> the whole country rapidly becoming another California too.....They are
>>> talking about adding a Value Added Tax to everything we buy. Our
>>> government is desperately grasping at any excuse to get more money from
>>> us anyway they can, and adding bureaucracy after bureaucracy to spend
>>> more and more of our incomes on more and more government employees.....I
>>> see no end to it, and obviously there is nothing I can possibly do about
>>> it, so I am just wasting my time trying to warn others about it. At this
>>> stage in my life, (I am 74) the best thing I can do is just pursue my
>>> hobbies and enjoy what life I have left, and let the next generation lie
>>> in whatever bed we have prepared for them. I can only hope that my
>>> private papers and letters tell them that I did my best to warn them of
>>> what was happening so they don't put too much of the blame on me. Not
>>> that I believe it will matter after I am gone anyway. I am a godless
>>> person, and do not believe in any afterlife. This country is only about
>>> 250 years old.....I doubt seriously if it will last another 100 years.
>>> It is obvious to me that human beings are incapable of sustaining a free
>>> existence indefinitely.....I guess we are too corrupt, or too lazy, or
>>> too uneducated, or all three.
>>
>>
>> And you have never produced a reliable source for that statistic.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
> Why should I? I believe it, and I vote according to it. If you don't
> believe it, then you should find your own statistics, and vote in
> accordance with them. first you attack my logic. Then, when I prove my
> case logically, you resort to attacking my facts. I am not going to search
> for the verification of my facts just for your benefit. My experience
> tells me that my facts are good. I have known several dozen welfare
> puppies and never one who was disabled in any way, so my experience tells
> me that my statistic is as I remember it. If you don't believe it, then
> happily give your hard earned money to the government and tell them to
> give it away to welfare takers. I can't help it if you are stupid. It is
> too late for me to save any money for myself anyway.....As I say, I
> haven't had to pay any taxes at all for the last 5 years or so, and it is
> obvious to me that I won't have to pay any for the rest of my life. So it
> is YOUR money that is being poured into this black hole, and not mine. Why
> should I bother to tell you about it? Obviously, you are too stupid to
> benefit from my experience, so you ask me to prove it to you.....Give me a
> break!


Prove your 98% figure. See my prior posting.

I think there are little purple people that visit your house when you are
sleeping. They disappear when you wake up. While you are sleeping the induce
subliminal thoughts of your self importance. It's my recollection. My logic
is perfect you cannot attack it. So you will resort to attacking my facts.
Prove me wrong.

--
Peter

From: tony cooper on
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:53:37 -0400, "Peter"
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

>From the logic 191 textbook:
>He who makes an affirmative statement has the obligation of proving it. A
>failure to provide the proof creates a strong inference of lack of
>credibility

I thought you were against picking on Chris.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jPadnTBtnezHZU3WnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4bceed65$3$27721$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...

>> Can you say derivatives?
>> Amazing, you have actually spouted a "liberal" concept. It's your own
>> fault your car was stolen. You left the keys in it.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
> The derivatives were a spin-off of the basic problem. People who saw it
> coming were making money by gambling on it. It's the original problem that
> caused the crash. And that was expecting the real estate market to
> continue to rise forever. (nothing rises forever) and making risky loans
> based on that stupidity. And the democrats are still encouraging the banks
> to do that, and backing them up with my tax dollars.......there is no end
> to their stupidity.
Whoosh~

They were selling the derivatives to customers while betting that they would
go bad.



--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7dWdncY1wpEoY03WnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4bcf2004$0$27730$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPWdncL2_4aCilLWnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4bccebb7$0$27701$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:2cGdnYKPS8_3VVbWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am saying, and have said several times before, that the people I am
>>>>> talking about are not those who are disabled to the extent that they
>>>>> find it impossible to work. I never wanted to cut these people
>>>>> off.....As a matter of fact, I would like to cut off the other 98% (a
>>>>> good statistic) who have all their fingers and toes and mental
>>>>> capabilities and could work, but don't, and give this money to those
>>>>> of whom you speak who can't work for one reason or another. The people
>>>>> of whom I speak, who could work but don't, ate (and have been)
>>>>> subsidized by the state of California all of my life...<BS rant
>>>>> snipped>
>>>>
>>>> And the reliable source for your statistics is?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter
>>> My excellent memory.....Please don't confuse welfare recipients with
>>> those on disability.....(although I have issues with the disability
>>> funds handling also) My son worked for the state cutting checks for both
>>> for around a year, but he worked for Oregon, and not California.
>>
>>
>> I requested a RELIABLE AND VERIFIABLE source.
>> Obviously, all you can do is cite bull turds
>>
>> --
>> Peter
> If you question my statistics, then prove me wrong. Google is just as
> available to you as it is to me. After all, I haven't had to pay a dollar
> in taxes (other than property taxes) for the last 5 years, and I doubt if
> I will for the rest of my life, so its YOUR money that's at stake here,
> and not mine.....Its too late to save any of mine.....:^)


See my prior postings. On second thought maybe those purple men are green,

--
Peter