Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

"Eric Miller" wrote in message .net...
"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote
The difference is, I started the investigation with the premise, "It
may have happened." You start with, "It did not happen." As you so
ably pointed out, your beginning assumptions have a great deal of
influence on your conclusions. In this case, your initial assumption
prevents you from reaching any conclusion other that your initial
premise. I'm still stunned that you don't see this.

There's no difference between our starting positions, I'm not unconvincible,
just unconvinced.

There is a huge difference. Subtle, but huge. I assume that the
resurrection MAY have happened - let's see whether there is any
plausible non-supernatural explanation. You assume that it DID NOT
happen unless "proven" oherwise.

Our only difference is our standards for evidence and proof. Mine are
reasonable and yours are ludicrous

Funny, I see it as QUITE the other way around. ;p


If you said you accept it on faith, that'd be fine and I'd let it go, but to
say there's proof is just silly.

I never said there was proof. There isn't and can't be proof,
oherwise there would be no need for faith. Faith is another word for
trust. God wants us to trust him. He didn't build robots that have
no choice. He gave us free will and wants us to exercise it to trust
him.

So there isn't proof, but there is evidence, a preponderance of
evidence IMO. The evidence is sufficient to convince this skeptical
inquirer that it is more likely than not that the resurrection did in
fact occur. It is the most plausible explanation that fits the facts.
Facts which include solid historical/documentary evidence that a LOT
of people claimed to have seen and interacted with the risen Jesus.

If a teacher is trying convey geometry to teach a student who doesn't
get
it, and asks the question "what will make you understand this?", a
response
of "I don't know" doesn't mean the student is unteachable or
uncooperative
(or that you're right ;p).
At some point the student will get it and only then will they be able to
identify what made them understand.

Your example doesn't examp. This isn't a geometry lesson.

How can you possibly say this isn't an accurate parallel?

Well, maybe it is, at that. I remember my high-school geometry,
staring dumbfunded at the blackboard while the teacher assured us that
this set of symbols proved thus-and-such theorem. The proof was
correct, even though I didn't comprehend it. So I suppose the example
DOES examp after all!

There's nothing wrong with an answer of "I don't know".
It takes a wise man to say "I don't know".
Only a fool says he knows when he doesn't... or doesn't know what he doesn't
know in the first place.


Oohh, are we going to get into epistimology?
How-do-you-know-what-you-know, what is knowledge, all that good stuff?
Careful with that can opener, Eugene! That aside, you *aren't*
saying that you don't know. You're saying that you *do* know: "The
resurrection did not happen unless you prove that it did."

I'm the fellow saying that I don't know: "Maybe the resurrection
really happened, maybe it didn't. Let's investigate the evidence and
the hypotheses."


Sufficient proof is what will convince me. By definition, if something
doesn't, it's insufficient.
I may or may not know what "sufficient" is in advance. In this case, I can't
even imagine it.


Still sounds like a cop-out to me. :-P


If you can't define "extraordinary evidence," that sentence has no
meaning.

Extraordinary evidence means demonstrably and repeatable.
Not really that extraordinary, unless you're claiming something that isn't
true, and then it's not just extraordinary, it's impossible!
If something isn't demonstrable and repeatable, it's useless.
If the Wright Brothers' powered flight couldn't be demonstrated and
repeated, it would've been of interest to no one and long since been
forgotten.

You're mixing apples and oranges. We're not talking about a
technology demonstration, we're talking about a singular historical
event.

If a magician produced a rabbit out of hat, would you believe he conjured it
out of thin air?
What if he only did it once and refused to do it again so you could watch
and examine his movements more closely?
What if the only time he did it was 2000 years ago?
What if the only witnesses were illiterate peasant-folk?
What if they told the story about the magician, back and forth, over the
next 50 years, and it grew with each retelling, until finally it was heard
by someone that knew how to write who then put pen to paper?
What if?

You seem to be making the "legendary accretion" argument. Doesn't
work. The time interval between the reported date of the resurrection
and the earliest collection is too short for "golly we sure miss
Jesus" to become "I saw Jesus alive again - and so did Jerry over
there!" Not all the witnesses were illiterate peasants. Jesus'
followers were from all walks of life. He had very few friends among
the Pharisees, but even on the Sanhedrin he had some supporters.


I can accept mundane specific events that don't violate the laws of physics.

If an observation conflicts with our understanding of how the world
works, then either the observation or our understanding may be in
error. You're assuming that your undertanding of the way things work
is accurate. Two hundred years ago, it was believed that a human
being would die if he traveled at more than 25 miles per hour. A
hundred and ten years ago, it was believed that heavier-than-air
flight violated the laws of physics. Seventy years ago, it was widely
believed that supersonic flight was impossible. Fifty years ago, the
thought of living in space was the stuff of fantasy.

Today, laboratory observations of quantum synchronicity phenomena
appear to violate the laws of physics. Does that mean that the
observations are erroneous, or that the "laws of physics" need to be
revised?

Now, I already know that you're going to counter with the "but those
are repeatable experiments." But they are repeatable only if you're
willing to use the tools. If I refuse to believe the evidence of an
airspeed indicator, then you can never convince me that Yeager broke
Mach 1. It's like the "Apollo was faked" crowd. They reject or
reinterpret every piece of evidence there is. What will it take to
convince them of the truth? They don't know and they can't say. :-D

Concepts of reality change. My view of what is possible is simply
larger than yours. Prayer works. But you have to actually PRAY to
find that out.

BTW, have you ever read "Flatland"? It's a very good metaphor for
what we're talking about. There's a whole race of beings that exist
in two dimensions. The all live on a flat plane called "Flatland."
One day a sphere passes through. The Flatlanders see it as a dot that
grows into a circle, expands, and finally shrinks back to a dot and
vanishes. Some Flatlanders perceive this phenomenon as evidence of
the 3rd dimension. Skeptics argue that the third dimension simply
does not exist. They've never personally experienced it, don't trust
eyewitnesses who saw the circle, and have no use for such silly
superstitions.


Try these mundane events, also drawn from historical documents: An
itenerant preacher draws large crowds - no problem believing that, I
presume? Happens even today. He repeatedly accuses the local leaders
of hypocrisy. He's arrested as a troublemaker and tried with false
witnesses in a kangaroo court - still all very believable, right?
He's sentenced to be tortured and executed by a particular method
known to scholars to have been used in that time and place. He dies,
and the death is verified by the executioner. His body is placed in a
hole carved in the side of a hill, and his followers are sad and
afraid.

So far, there's absolutely nothing that you would take issue with,
right? Very believable. Simulatable, even.

I have no problem with a historical Messiah. In fact, there have been
several dozen purported messiahs since the first century BCE.
Notably, Muhammad clearly stated he was NOT a messiah, perhaps because
messiahs tended to meet untimely ends.


None of them ever claimed to have risen from the dead.


And then the narrative ends with a remarkable thing - the followers
return to the tomb a day later and find it empty. How to explain
that? Oh, there're plenty of possibilities. But now other
contemporary ancient texts pick up the thread, with the utterly
startling assertion that the dead guy came back to life and was seen
my lots of people.

Now we have a real problem, because the same texts that contain this
fantastic tale also contain these utterly mundane observations. And
the literary styles of the day don't include fiction that reads like
this. There's fiction, but it's very different. This stuff really
reads like authentic eyewitness accounts. You can't just dismiss it -
you have to account for it somehow.

I don't HAVE to do anything.


There you go again, copping out and avoiding the issue.


Fortunately, there's no need to, because I suspect human nature has changed
very little over 2000 years.
People are just as poor observers, just as gullible, just as superstitious
and just as willing to believe what they want to believe today.

That's not an argument based on the evidence. That's merely a slur
directed at people of a different culture. A thousand years from now,
people will look back at us as hopelessly backwards, gullible, etc.
(Remember Star Trek's Dr. MCoy's reaction to the idea of surgery?
"Cutting people open and sewing them back up - how BARBARIC!")

I challenge you to get off your modernist high-horse and actually
investigate the scholarly evidence. I'm not suggesting that you take
the Bible on faith. Just look at it through the lens of a scholar.
Set your assumptions and prejudices aside and just look at the
evidence.

That leaves the claim of a divine power that just doesn't feel like
convincing me right now.
As the SNL Church Lady would say, "How convenient!"


He's the potter, we're the clay. For all I know you're a just a skeet
target. I'm not going to argue with him. I just keep hacking at the
weeds.


Do you ever wonder why several billion people, including many highly
educated, intelligent, non-superstitious all belive this crazy idea?
We're not talking about a dozen or so social outcasts who believe that
a UFO is flying right echalon on a comet.

No, I don't wonder at all.
People believe in life after death because they don't like the idea of a one
time existence and then vanishing forever into nothingness.

Oddly enough, Jewish theology does NOT contain the idea of life after
death. "Sheol" is simply the "land of the dead," not a reward or
punishment.

What I find truly disturbing is that these people find more comfort in the
possibility of eternal torment than in just being snuffed out.

Interesting point. There's a fairly large school of thought within
even conservative Christianity that suggests that Hell is eternal
destruction, not eternal torment. Dead and gone, not dead and
burning. Either way, it's a ****-poor alternative to eternal life in
paradise. Imagine - no need for annuals or pre-flights! :-D

Probably because they all belief the eternal torment part will happen to
someone else.

Actually, Luther's whole motivation was that he had no assurance that
he was going to heaven.


You know, when Fido dies, we tell Little Sally that we sent him off to a
farm, somewhere upstate, where he can run around in fields chasing rabbits
all day.

Not me. My kids know what death is. I've been close on several
occasions. Our elderly neighbor died a year or so ago. The kids know
she's not on vacation.

Believing in life after death is no different, except it's a lie you tell
yourself and let yourself believe. Grow up Little Sally!

I see it as just the opposite. Believing that this-is-all-there-is
lets you avoid the unpleasant thought that maybe there really is a
Judge, and that you don't measure up - no matter how "good enough" you
think you are. Grow up indeed.



People all over the world, regardless of religion, are generally good.
We band together and help each other in times of need.
We don't have to be told this, we just do it, and we do it well.

You can say the same for murder and pillage. "We just do it, and we
do it well." Didja ever stop to consider that the civilization we
take for granted here in the US is wildly atypical? Most of the world
settles disagreements with guns and knives, not words. People band
together, sure - to help their own tribe. But we better kill the
other guys before they take our stuff - THAT is the history of the
human race. Sad but true.

Murder and pillage are also universally punished.

Not when it's government policy, or if there's no government. Just
ask anyone from Cambodia, Bosnia, or Rwanda. And just try to set up a
sign in a US courtroom that says "Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not
steal" and see what happens. *Where* are we going and *why* are we in
this handbasket?

And if the amount of violence in the world exceeded the amount of
benevolence we wouldn't be 6-7 billion strong now.

Don't confuse birthrate with benevolence. Human populations grow to
the limit of their food supply, just like any other critter. We're
just clever enough to alter the environment. If agriculture hadn't
replaced foraging, we'd still be living in small tribal clusters.

Anyone else find the idea of a religious cynic and an atheistic optimist to
be ironic? :-)


The optimist believes we are living in the best of all possible
worlds. The cynic knows this to be true. :-D


Corrie

"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote

God wants us to trust him.

Remember that trust isn't a right, it has to be earned. I can't trust that
which:
a) doesn't exist in the first place, or
b) if it did exist has been shown to be arbitrary, inconsistent and at least
as foul tempered and prone to tantrums as any over-tired 2 year old.
He can have my trust after a spanking, a time out, has thought about all
he's done wrong, and has sincerely apologized for his bad behavior. Maybe.

You're mixing apples and oranges. We're not talking about a
technology demonstration, we're talking about a singular historical
event.

The historical is irrelevant, it's the singular that's the conundrum.
If it only apparently happened once 2000 years ago, we can safely call it
observer/experimental error and ignore it.

I can accept mundane specific events that don't violate the laws of
physics.

If an observation conflicts with our understanding of how the world
works, then either the observation or our understanding may be in
error. You're assuming that your undertanding of the way things work
is accurate. Two hundred years ago, it was believed that a human
being would die if he traveled at more than 25 miles per hour. A
hundred and ten years ago, it was believed that heavier-than-air
flight violated the laws of physics. Seventy years ago, it was widely
believed that supersonic flight was impossible. Fifty years ago, the
thought of living in space was the stuff of fantasy.

But continued observation and experimentation has led to greater
understanding of how things work.
No observation or experimentation has resulted in resurrection. Until it
does, there's no need to change our understanding.

Today, laboratory observations of quantum synchronicity phenomena
appear to violate the laws of physics. Does that mean that the
observations are erroneous, or that the "laws of physics" need to be
revised?

No, because they're predicted and expected by quantum mechanics.
What's more, quantum mechanics predicts other things which we can test and
verify.
That's what makes QM useful and valuable.
Theories which don't predict and can't be tested or verified are useless and
worthless.

Now you can say that the Resurrection predicts an after-life... but unless
someone comes back and confirms then it's untestable.
If someone DOES come back, it satisfies my required for repeatability.
But then it would also supply proof, which defies faith, so it can't be
ALLOWED to happen.
A nice little bit of circular logic.

Now, I already know that you're going to counter with the "but those
are repeatable experiments." But they are repeatable only if you're
willing to use the tools. If I refuse to believe the evidence of an
airspeed indicator, then you can never convince me that Yeager broke
Mach 1. It's like the "Apollo was faked" crowd. They reject or
reinterpret every piece of evidence there is. What will it take to
convince them of the truth? They don't know and they can't say. :-D

Concepts of reality change. My view of what is possible is simply
larger than yours. Prayer works. But you have to actually PRAY to
find that out.

Prayer works. So do sugar pills, with the same efficacy. Consult your
physician for possible side effects of either.

BTW, have you ever read "Flatland"? It's a very good metaphor for
what we're talking about. There's a whole race of beings that exist
in two dimensions. The all live on a flat plane called "Flatland."
One day a sphere passes through. The Flatlanders see it as a dot that
grows into a circle, expands, and finally shrinks back to a dot and
vanishes. Some Flatlanders perceive this phenomenon as evidence of
the 3rd dimension. Skeptics argue that the third dimension simply
does not exist. They've never personally experienced it, don't trust
eyewitnesses who saw the circle, and have no use for such silly
superstitions.

Of course I know "Flatland".
And if the sphere should pass through flatland but once, what need is there
to explain it?

And just because they're in a 2D world, doesn't prohibit them from
formulating a 3D model.
That, however, doesn't make the 3D world real (see superstring theory... not
to be confused with Silly String).


Further, while there's a elegant 3D explanation in this case, it's not
REQUIRED.
You could just as easily explain it as a growing and shrinking circle, and
it's just as valid.

Fortunately, there's no need to, because I suspect human nature has
changed
very little over 2000 years.
People are just as poor observers, just as gullible, just as
superstitious
and just as willing to believe what they want to believe today.

That's not an argument based on the evidence. That's merely a slur
directed at people of a different culture. A thousand years from now,
people will look back at us as hopelessly backwards, gullible, etc.
(Remember Star Trek's Dr. MCoy's reaction to the idea of surgery?
"Cutting people open and sewing them back up - how BARBARIC!")

I challenge you to get off your modernist high-horse and actually
investigate the scholarly evidence. I'm not suggesting that you take
the Bible on faith. Just look at it through the lens of a scholar.
Set your assumptions and prejudices aside and just look at the
evidence.

You misread me. No modernistic high-horse here!
I'm not judging the people of 2000 years ago and saying they're gullible....
I'm saying people TODAY are gullible, and the people of 2000 years ago were
likely no better.

No, I don't wonder at all.
People believe in life after death because they don't like the idea of a
one
time existence and then vanishing forever into nothingness.

What I find truly disturbing is that these people find more comfort in
the
possibility of eternal torment than in just being snuffed out.

Interesting point. There's a fairly large school of thought within
even conservative Christianity that suggests that Hell is eternal
destruction, not eternal torment. Dead and gone, not dead and
burning. Either way, it's a ****-poor alternative to eternal life in
paradise. Imagine - no need for annuals or pre-flights! :-D

Or maybe an endless string of BFRs! :P

But is paradise an actual, available alternative or are you just fooling
yourself?
"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" clearly applies.

I see it as just the opposite. Believing that this-is-all-there-is
lets you avoid the unpleasant thought that maybe there really is a
Judge, and that you don't measure up - no matter how "good enough" you
think you are. Grow up indeed.

It's just a reality, pleasantness or unpleasantness doesn't enter into it;
it simply is.
And I have no doubt about measuring up as "good enough", in this or any
other category... except humility.
(But really, what's the point if you can't claim bragging rights for being
the Most Humble Ever! )

People all over the world, regardless of religion, are generally
good.
We band together and help each other in times of need.
We don't have to be told this, we just do it, and we do it well.

You can say the same for murder and pillage. "We just do it, and we
do it well." Didja ever stop to consider that the civilization we
take for granted here in the US is wildly atypical? Most of the world
settles disagreements with guns and knives, not words. People band
together, sure - to help their own tribe. But we better kill the
other guys before they take our stuff - THAT is the history of the
human race. Sad but true.

Murder and pillage are also universally punished.

Not when it's government policy, or if there's no government. Just
ask anyone from Cambodia, Bosnia, or Rwanda.

Exceptions which prove the rule.

Eric

"Eric Miller" wrote:

"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote

God wants us to trust him.

Remember that trust isn't a right, it has to be earned. I can't trust that
which:
a) doesn't exist in the first place, or
b) if it did exist has been shown to be arbitrary, inconsistent and at least
as foul tempered and prone to tantrums as any over-tired 2 year old.
He can have my trust after a spanking, a time out, has thought about all
he's done wrong, and has sincerely apologized for his bad behavior. Maybe.

Imagine suddenly finding yourself before the very being who created
life, the universe and everything. Someone who could populate a void
with a few trillion stars just 'cuz he felt like it. Someone who
didn't discover DNA, but assembled it.

I try to imagine how ANYONE in that situation would want to tell him
what he did wrong, and why they should be admitted into his presence
because "they earned it".

Somehow, I don't think that's likely... but that's just my take on it.

Mark Hickey

In article , Mark Hickey
writes:


Imagine suddenly finding yourself before the very being who created
life, the universe and everything. Someone who could populate a void
with a few trillion stars just 'cuz he felt like it. Someone who
didn't discover DNA, but assembled it.

I try to imagine how ANYONE in that situation would want to tell him
what he did wrong, and why they should be admitted into his presence
because "they earned it".

Somehow, I don't think that's likely... but that's just my take on it.

Mark Hickey



Mark,

Its all about FAITH. You either have it or you don't. If you do, you can
easily find the justification for it. If you don't, you can also easily find
the justification. No amount of argument is going to change the minds of the
other party so the argument remains endless.

The best that either can do is to accept the position of the others and allow
both to live in peace. I will agree to not try and change you, you agree to
not try and change me.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

God wants us to trust him.
Remember that trust isn't a right, it has to be earned.

Answered very well by another contributor. I'll simply add that God
owes you nothing-zero-zip-zilch-nada, as he already 0wnZ you lock,
stock, and barrel.


You're mixing apples and oranges. We're not talking about a
technology demonstration, we're talking about a singular historical
event.

The historical is irrelevant, it's the singular that's the conundrum.
If it only apparently happened once 2000 years ago, we can safely call it
observer/experimental error and ignore it.

You're still terribly confused, attempting to apply the tools of
science to a question of history. Worse, you don't even recognize the
fallacy of doing so.

Just because an event only happened once does not mean that it never
happened! The K-T impact only happened once. The flooding of the
Mediterranean basin only happened once. Krakatoa only blew up once.
Same for Mt. St. Helens.

I already know that you're going to say, "but those are within the
realm of reason, and a resurrection is not." That is true only within
a worldview that DENIES THE POSSIBILITY of a singular resurrection a
priori. You're beginning with a premise, and using that premise to
reject any evidence that would lead to a conclusion that conflicts
with it.

IT'S BAD LOGIC!

The resurrection of Jesus is singular for a reason. It's only
*needed* once. You may smirk and say, "how convenient," but that
doesn't change the facts. In the Christian worldview, only one
resurrection is required. One does not expect to see further
examples. The model does not predict them.

The question is, did the one really happen or not? You're simply
refusing to investigate. You're ducking the question.
Bwaaaawk-buk-buk-buk-buk-buk!


But continued observation and experimentation has led to greater
understanding of how things work.
No observation or experimentation has resulted in resurrection. Until it
does, there's no need to change our understanding.

Q.E.D. The point is, your modernist worldview is insufficient to the
task. It disregards a large chunk of reality simply because it cannot
be measured by "scientific" means. A friend recently sent me a very
apropos quote from Albert Einstein on the subject: "Not everything
that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted
counts."


Today, laboratory observations of quantum synchronicity phenomena
appear to violate the laws of physics. Does that mean that the
observations are erroneous, or that the "laws of physics" need to be
revised?

No, because they're predicted and expected by quantum mechanics.

Not the first time! The laws of QM were written to *explain*
observations that contradicted the accepted laws of physics. The
Newtonian worldview was insufficient to the task - "real" reality
could not be adequately or defined by F=MA anymore. So the definition
of "real" was expanded to include color, strange, and charm. The
point is that "real reality" is much larger than the shadow that you
accept.

Theories which don't predict and can't be tested or verified are useless and
worthless.

Such as the idea of one phylum morphing into a different phylum over
millions of years? Can't test it or verify it. Not repeatable.
Doesn't predict anything, at least not anything of use to us, or
anything we can measure. So it must be worthless, right? :-P


Now you can say that the Resurrection predicts an after-life... but unless
someone comes back and confirms then it's untestable.
If someone DOES come back, it satisfies my required for repeatability.
But then it would also supply proof, which defies faith, so it can't be
ALLOWED to happen. A nice little bit of circular logic.

Nice little straw man. Not what I claimed at all. The resurrection
is not a theory. It's an historical event. You're using the wrong
hammer.


Prayer works. So do sugar pills, with the same efficacy. Consult your
physician for possible side effects of either.


Wrong hammer again. I expect an MD to know about pills, but not
necessarily about prayer. Consult your clergy for evidence about the
efficacy of prayer.


Of course I know "Flatland".
And if the sphere should pass through flatland but once, what need is there
to explain it?


Maybe because it's coming back? :-D


And just because they're in a 2D world, doesn't prohibit them from
formulating a 3D model.
That, however, doesn't make the 3D world real (see superstring theory... not
to be confused with Silly String).
Further, while there's a elegant 3D explanation in this case, it's not
REQUIRED.
You could just as easily explain it as a growing and shrinking circle, and
it's just as valid.


No, because the third dimension and the sphere are in fact REAL, which
we can see from our three-dimensional vantage point. The "it's just a
growing and shrinking circle" explanation is WRONG. It does, however,
work better than any non-supernatural explanation of the evidences of
the Resurrection of Jesus that you've offered to date. At least the
skeptical flatlanders had an explanation that FIT THE EVIDENCE.


You misread me. No modernistic high-horse here!
I'm not judging the people of 2000 years ago and saying they're gullible....
I'm saying people TODAY are gullible, and the people of 2000 years ago were
likely no better.

Accepted. So then I assume that you'd be willing to take up the
challenge and look at the evidence at face value? I dare ya!

Murder and pillage are also universally punished.
Not when it's government policy, or if there's no government. Just
ask anyone from Cambodia, Bosnia, or Rwanda.
Exceptions which prove the rule.


If exceptions prove the rule, then any rule can - perhaps should -
have exceptions. For example, the rule that says dead people don't
come back to life?


There's a fairly large school of thought within
even conservative Christianity that suggests that Hell is eternal
destruction, not eternal torment. Dead and gone, not dead and
burning. Either way, it's a ****-poor alternative to eternal life in
paradise. Imagine - no need for annuals or pre-flights! :-D

Or maybe an endless string of BFRs! :P


Shoot, that'd just be Purgatory. If you're *really* unrepentant, you
bust a TFR and get a ramp check on every flight. ;-^


But is paradise an actual, available alternative or are you just fooling
yourself?
"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" clearly applies.

I thought *you* were supposed to be the optimist here. :-) We're
back to Pascal's wager. If you're right, I gain nothing and you lose
nothing. If I'm right, I gain everything and you lose everything.

To your question, though, yes - paradise is actual and available. The
PTS is a bitch, though. "Excruciating" would not be too strong a word
for it. No one has ever been able to meet the specs, or ever will,
except for this one guy with the scarred hands and feet. (He got
those scars passing the checkride.)

Here's the deal, though - the DE gives you a total waiver from the PTS
if you let that guy endorse your logbook - which he does in his own
blood. All you have to do is ask.


Corrie