Bible-beater pilots

Rick,

Prove to you that God loves you? - Can't be done.

But, you can prove it to yourself. "If any of you lacks wisdom (the
knowledge of God and His nature), he should ask God, who gives generously to
all without finding fault, and it will be given to him."


All the best to you too,

John

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message


And then check the constitution. VERY disturbing.

Careful, now. "..Shall make no law barring..." is a far cry from
acknowledging a god. You'll need to come up with a better argument than
that, I'm afraid.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
____________________


If you're going to use quotes, use them accurately:

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".

H.
Parting out N502TB, BE58P

Thomas Borchert wrote:

L,



Equally acceptable: Propose a test that would prove any of them wrong.




Nope! Science isn't about proving negatives. It just doesn't make sense.

I suggest you go back and read up on the Mikkelson-Morley experiments
with the
speed of light. IIRC they earned the Nobel Prize by proving that "ether"
(the ether
of the ancients, not the chemical) didn't exist.


Give me one statement in science that you cannot prove.

"Life as we know it does not exist anywhere in the universe."

In order to prove this statement true, you would have to examine every
possible location
throughout the universe and show that nowhere is there life as we know it.

On the other hand, you can easily prove this statement false - just
find life as we know
it somewhere else.

Give me one
statement that doesn't hold up to observation in reality. OTOH, the
religious "statements" made by the OP have no basis in observation, they
cannot be proven - they are, for all we know, pure conjecture.

I agree. My point is that while they can never be proven true, they
can also never be
proven false.

Rich Lemert

"Larry Fransson" wrote:
You misunderstand. ...

You're right, Larry; I missed your point. Excuse me.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article , Chris W writes:

Please point to an example of such a concentration of power in this country
where government has not been used to suppress competition in some way or
there
has been unlawful coercion in the marketplace.

Microsoft is the best example. They create new products, and use their
marketing
power and money to try and drive competitors out of business, Netscape being
just
one of many examples of that there are even some examples where they have
failed
because their marketing wasn't enough to over come the worthless product they
put
together when the competition in this case had a far superior product.

I like arguing politics, and I will even venture cautiously into religion, but
I find it far to polarized a battlefield to argue the relative merit of MS and
it's competitors quality.

However, the market place does not function on 'supply and quality' but on
supply and *demand.* Whether IE or Netscape is the better browser, the demand
for IE won out. That is probably a combination of marketing and integration,
you COULD buy a Ford but get a Chevy engine installed, but the added hassle of
adapting it wouldn't really be worth it. IE won out over Netscape, get over it.


They
have
told computer resellers that if they ship any computers with a competitors
product
pre installed then they will force that reseller to pay a much higher price
for
Microsoft products. In one case Microsoft had some kind of agreement with
computer
resellers where they had to put windows on all computers, that way those who
want
to run other operating systems still had to pay for windows, this in commonly
refereed to as the Microsoft tax. While the government is involved and has
pretended to do something about it, in reality they have done nothing.


There are thousands of computer assemblers who will be happy to sell you a
computer without an operating system. There always have been, but there were
also some vendors who would sell you one with Windows for less than the others
would sell one without an operating system. You are only harmed if you insist
on doing business with those suppliers who made that deal with MS. so long as
you have th choice to take your business elsewhere, you have no complaint.

Then there is the music industry where a few very large corporations control
everything and everyone from the DJs to song writers to artists to which
songs on a
new CD they are going to let us hear. In this case the government is helping
them
make it even worse, by taking our rights that the copyright laws give us.


Were those artists forced at gunpoint to sign those contracts? If so, call the
FBI, if not, then whose rights were transgressed?

I'm not trying to suggest that if libertarians were in charge that it would
be any
better or worse, just that it is pretty bad the way it is now.


Things are bad only where we have strayed from capitalism by letting the
governemt interfere in some way.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article , "Peter Gottlieb"
writes:


"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
I suspect there are few pilots who are not libertarians at heart. The two
mindsets mesh far too well for me to be the only one here.

Yeah, but so what? In the present system one needs to vote against rather
than vote for, and to effectively vote against, you have to "side with" the
strongest alternative. The LP may very well have some good principles, but
I don't see them getting anywhere serious for a very long time, if ever.



This is a fight I have with my fellow LP members often. TO me, it is more
important that libertarian ideas prevail, not Libertarian candidates. If that
means gently persuading Republicans and even some Democrats to become more
libertarian, then so be it.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article .net, L Smith
writes:


The central tenet of Libertarian policy is that we do not INITIATE the use
of
force. Most abuses masquerading as laissz-faire capitalism are actually
unholy
alliances of government and some individual or corporation. Aircraft
certification is a good example of a group of corporations using the force
of
government to bar competition.

And I suppose the requirements that physicians must be licensed to
practice medicine
is simply the AMA to do the same thing? Meanwhile, the bar exam is just
another
intrusion into paradise to fatten lawyer's wallets? And I guess the
professional engineers
exam is another way the "good old boys club" is maintained? Heaven
forbid that any
of these might require the applicant to demonstrate competence in the
subject.


How much less expensive would GA aircraft be if the government played no
part
in certification? Let anyone build an airplane and put it on the market. Let
the AOPA, or a consortium of aircraft insurers, do the rating and let the
individual purchaser assume the risks if he chooses the unrated airplane.

Why stop there? Why should the purchaser even have to demonstrate
competence in
his ability to control that aircraft? After all, if he's willing to
assume the risk, what business
is it of mine?

It's just a thought, but it seems to me that whether or not your
'hero' chooses to buy an
unrated plane, and whether or not he chooses to become competent in the
operation of
that aircraft, is VERY MUCH MY BUSINESS! That guy is going to go buzzing
around
over my head, and when (not if, but when) he gets his ass into trouble,
chances are he's
going to try to take me with him. So if you don't mind, I'm going to
continue to insist
that someone make sure that that plane is airworthy, and that pilot is
competent. I'm also
going to insist that the people who make those decisions are competent
to do so, so that
I don't have to become an expert in everything just to protect my skin.


The fallacy here is that you assume because the private sector is NOT doing
something now, it still would not if the government were not in the way.

I am a dentist, licensed by the state. But if the state stayed out of it, I
would still need professional liability insurance. It would be in the insurance
company's best interest to only insure competent dentists, so they would check
my credentials and my record before insuring me. YOu need only check to see if
i have insurance to know if I am qualified, so what purpose does the license
really serve?

The insurer might still insure the quack, but at a much higher rate, raising
his costs sufficiently that he could not compete with me, so the marketplace
would cull the quacks. Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to
get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with insured
dentists) gets what they pay for.

No license, no government interference, but no loss to the consumer, as it is
just as easy to see if I am insured as it is to see if I am licensed.

The same thing already applies to airplanes. Try to buy a high performance
airplane with a bank loan. They will require insurance for the loan. The
insurer's requirements for time in type, annual experience and recurrent
training are already in excess of what the FAA requires.

Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free market
will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our liberty.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free
market
will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our
liberty.

Hey Don, do you think we should have gone into Iraq?

Also, while many try and use the poor argument you described to "convert"
people, I think anyone that really understands scripture,


Who claims to "really understand scripture"? I have some questions for that
person.

John,

You'll need to come up with a better argument than
that, I'm afraid.


Seems I don't. See H. Adams Stevens' post.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)