Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

(Corrie) wrote
In Eastern science (which of course is based on eastern philosophy)
there is an important concept called "polar complimentary opposites."
It's derived from the concept of yin/yang - two things that at first
glance appear to be diametrically opposed. If one is true, the other
cannot be. But when one steps back to the proper perspective, it is
revealed that BOTH are in fact true, and the sum of them becomes a
single whole truth that is greater than the sum of the parts.

That's it. You've come around. No need to argue the diliniation
between natural selection and artifical selection. Nature does not
recognize these clasifications. The mechanisms of DNA "unzippering"
are the same in both the breeders cage and in the wild. From a
perspective of shear molecular function, there is no difference.
Evolution of the blood line occurs the same in both (mutations create
diversity. The degree of that morphing is different only from our
perspective as huge life forms.) Classification, true/false
characterizations are human contrivances. If the truth were known,
there is no difference between the sciences of Chemistry and Physics.
They are the same thing. We just tend to break things down into tidy
true/false packages so that we can get our mind around the basic
concepts. I believe the Bible is one of the most acurate records of
human history we have. But there's no reason to let those accounts
morph into Greek Mythology. Most myths have their basis in fact. The
great flood certainly seemed like it soaked the whole known world to
the men of the time. Indeed it appears the Black Sea covers massive
settlements and matches exactly the account in the Bible. Does this
make the account false? No. To the men of the time, it was the best
info they had.


In western thought this is called a paradox. There are some inherent
paradoxes in religion and in science. They are sometimes erroneously
called contradictions. There's an important difference. With a
contradiction, both A and B cannot possibly be true. With a paradox,
it seems that both A and B cannot both be true, but it is
demonstratable that in fact both A and B ARE true.

The classic Christian paradox is man's accountability and God's
soveriegnty. How can God hold us accountable for our actions when He
is ultimately in control of everything? It seems like a logical
impossibility, but it is in fact a paradox. Both-and, not either-or.
(The 'proof' for our purposes that both are true is Scripture. From
Genesis to Revelation both God's sovereignty and humankind's
accountabiltiy are inseparably interwoven.)
)
Well back to the definition of God. When I spit a lugie on the
sidewalk, before it hits, its entirely possible, since it is a group
of life forms (cells) that quark life forms have reached consciencness
mid-way to the ground, are looking out into their universe and
wondering if a supreme being, a god cares about them (that would be
me.) Yes I care that I don't get caught by a cop doing this; I know
that those cells are my children that are part of my grand design (to
clear my throat) but I don't desire to let them in on the big picture,
cuz I'm outa here.

A classic scientific paradox is the wave/particle nature of light.
Light behaves as a wave. It also behaves as a particle. Both are
demonstrably true.


I agree with Eric that everything in this universe, no matter how
complex, can be distilled down to simple physics, chemistry, etc;
elementary elements with complex relationships that if we had enough
time and money, could be described and demistified.

Since that statement is unproven and unprovable, you are a
materialist. I believe (again in the inevitable absence of proof)
that there exist things in and beyond this universe that we not only
do not comprehend, but that we cannot comprehend. We both have faith,
albeit in different things.

Got news for you, fellow lugie rider: We're floating halfway to the
sidewalk in a universe (the lugie)that is part of God's (the larger
universe's) big plan. We shouldn't assume our world is very important
from God's perspective. Who are you to judge God? Maybe he is a
materialist. Your own faith says you can't rule this out.


So what is love, death, faith, etc.
I believe these are complex chemical reactions within your brain that
give you your being; your soul; your conscience. This beleif, while
sophisticated, does not contradict the original dead sea scrolls, or
any other faith for that matter.

Actually, it does contradict *most* world religions. You are saying
that what we perceive as the 'spiritual reality' beyond this world is
really just a series of complex chemical reactions - no world exists
beyond this one of time/space/matter. *Every* religion (with the
possible exception of Dianetics/Scientology) - every variant of
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, animist, etc. -
has at its core the conviction that this world that we see is NOT the
ultimate reality.

Could the prophets *see* a chemical reaction? That my friend was an
unseen world back then. I maintain that nothing in science
contradicts the great faiths before they were translated.


Let me tell you why I believe this is true. All life forms measure
time differently. During a checkride or
harrowing event, I can attest, time slows way down for me. It seems
like it takes forever.

An interesting concept in its own right, as the next poster
illustrated. The great swordsman Miamato Mushashi spoke of "the mind
of no mind." When he was in combat, he was not "aware" of anything,
really, not as most people would define awareness. He simply reacted
to his opponent. Physically, he was likely in a high-alpha-wave state
that researchers call a "flow" or "fugue" state. Subjectively, he was
not thinking. It may have something to do with "spiritual" feelings
or trance states. But it would be an error to assume that the
perception of a spiritual reality is the *result* of an alpha state,
and therefore does not objectively exist. It may be that the
objectively-real spiritual realm can only be perceived when the brain
is in a certain relaxed state.

I suspect that when we die, the mechanism that measures time is
altered. As your brain decomposes, seconds turn to years, minutes
turn to infinity...

Interesting idea, but AFAIK studies of people who have had near-death
experiences does not bear this out. The "floating above by body on
the operating table" experience doesn't have an altered sense of time
passing - persons report watching events in real-time. The "floating
towards a warm white light" doesn't seem to be correlated to belief
system, at least as far as I've read. Interviews with survivors of
drownings don't indicate an altered sense of time (read "The Perfect
Storm" for an interesting and harrowing description of what it's like
to drown).

Well, the subconcious mind is not too reliable (just like RAH :-)
However it is common for Coma patients who have been out for five
years to not believe that even a month has gone by when they recover.
The mind cannot determine time passage without some input. Sleep
studies without the sun bear this out. Sensory deprivation chambers
are famous for confusing the occupants as to what day it is, without a
watch or the sun to mark time. Death may be just an eternal coma.


This would mean that both camps are partly correct in their "faiths."
The athiest is right that all things are physical, and the devote
religious follower is right to want "last rights" from a priest to
get his mind right before he gets stuck into low gear nano-second
time.

Except that what you're *really* saying is that the believer is really
fooling himself; that God, Heaven and Hell are figments of his
imagination. I strenuously disagree. They are real whether or not
you believe in them, as real as the mountain inside the cloud. As
real as the horizon when your 8-ball gyro seizes up.

Got more news: everything you know is a figment of chemical storage.
Nope, the pain is real even though your leg has been cut off. You
still swear you have a leg until you take in some logical
observations; pull the sheet back and use those eyes God gave you. It
shouldn't shake your faith in your brain; even though your brain is
telling you a leg is down there. No you don't have to fool yourself.
Things are only as you percieve them to be. Those things Hell, God,
Heaven, RAH are not simple time/space locations like GPS coordinates.
They aren't physical dots on a map somewhere. They don't exist like
some mirage that solidifies into solid matter. They are, like
everything else you've ever been though, rather, experiences.
Experiences that are recorded and weaved physically in your constantly
evolving chemical brain.

God I get smarter with each post :-)

pac

"anonymous agenda boy posting as " wrote in message . com...

I didn't think you would grasp (or maybe admit) the point, that the
use of something which looks like a real name does not make someone
un-anonymous on USENET.

The only thing which makes someone un-anonymous on USENET is being
personally known to the participants in the group or having enough
history/details to be internally consistant that (for example) yes,
this really is Dudley Henrique the Mustang fighter pilot/instructor
mentioned in several books and not some pretender assuming the name.

Picking a "real name" like "mturner" or "fsmith"? Doesn't do it.
And anyone who has been around USENET any length of time ought to
know it.

Watching someone who is essentially anonymous viciously attack others
as anonymous cowards is truly a game of pot, kettle, black.

I don't know if you can't see that, or simply won't, and I don't
really care. The point stands just the same.

(Snowbird) wrote
I could open up an internet account right now. I could call myself,
let's see, "tturner". I could make sure the account I open has a
newsserver which trace routes to an appropriate geographic region,
or doesn't include an nntp posting host.

You'll have to show me how to do that sometime.

Never done it.

AOL is pretty untraceable though, unless you know someone who works
there. You might ask Bill Phillips about that. Oh, wait, I forget;
we're not supposed to hold poor underdog Mr. Phillips past posts against
him, it's only OK if it's him or his buds holding a 5 year grudge against
someone else over a couple USENET posts or $20 or some beer.

Sorry, I forgot your agenda for a moment.

The information on at least two ways to do it is right on this
group, though. I just don't happen to care enough to spend $10
and 10 minutes on that game.

But that game can't be played by me right now

Yeah, right. Bzzt. It can be played by anyone with internet access.

Well, sorry to bust that bubble, Sydney, this wouldn't work for you,
babe, cuz your inexperience with the equipment would show up in your
posts.

Like I called you, "anonymous agenda boy". Quacks, feathers, duck.

You show it so clearly every time you respond to me.

At least, I would be to some people with an apparent depth and
breadth of naivete', hee hee!
Gimmee a break! Sheesh!

That's right sister, just me. M. Turner. Snowbird at snowbird isn't
very brave, but we all know who you a Ladypilot, Snowbird, Sydney.
Your style is unmistakable.

This is really, really, really funny. You think *I'm* Ladypilot?
Because "my style is unmistakeable"???? Bzzzzzzt! Wrong. But
thank you for playing.

You are just so cute! Insulting, but so funny! Almost as funny
as when you seemed to imply maybe I made that post about the pig
from a directway email address. I let that slide. I'll answer now.

For the record, I have signed every post I've made to USENET in
the last 4 years (maybe longer) with my name, Sydney.

The only other posting name I've used is Snowbird, and pretty much
all the regulars on the newsgroups I posted as knew it was me right
away. So I think I can rightly claim to have never posted anonymously.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is well, um, not as clever as they
believe themselves to be. Or maybe trusting information from someone
who isn't as clever as they believe themselves to be.

They could put an expert on it, and subpoena every ISP record in the
universe, and that's what it would show. Not because I don't know
how to do otherwise, but because that's not how I choose to spend
my time.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled agenda.

I'll probably let your follow-up slide too. It's just amusing to
post to you from time to time, because when you're not responding
to me or a couple others you manage a pretty good facade of being
a normal aviation joe just hangin' here shooting the breeze.

When you're responding to me, or a couple others though, you really
let your agenda show.

Toodle-oo, Anonymous Agenda Boy Posting as MTurner!

Cheers,
Sydney

"Eric Miller" wrote in message .net...

Now that we agree on definitions, refer back to my earlier point.
Induction and abduction can lead to false (logical) conclusions even when
logically correct and consistent.
Deduction can never lead to false logical conclusions, but may be limited as
to what conclusions can be reached.
All three forms of logic have their strengths and weaknesses which you have
to be aware of when using them.

My point exactly. The issue is the initial assumption. I maintain
that you have blinders on with an initial assumption that
"resurrections don't happen unless proven otherwise. "


Anecdotal evidence, no matter how voluminous, can only suggest; hard
evidence is necessary for confirmation.

That's the nugget, then. What hard evidence would convince you?

Good question, and I don't have an answer... but then I don't need to have
one, convincing me is your job.
If I come across some convincing and acceptable evidence, I'll let you know,
but nothing I've seen comes even remotely close, so don't hold your breath


IOW, "I'll know it when I see it?" Oh, c'mon now. That has to be the
ultimate cop-out! It proves my point exactly! Your initial
assumption is that supernatural events DO NOT happen. Not that they
PROBABLY DON'T happen, but that they DO NOT. And with that FAULTY
initial assumption, your deduction winds up wrong.

"I can't even say what evidence would convince me." Pshaw. Even
Doubting Thomas was able to specify the conditions under which he
would believe.

This is a one-time historical event we are talking about, not a
repeatable experiment. Do you believe that the Saxon King Harold
caught an arrow in the eye at Hastings in 1066? That Pickett led a
charge at Gettysburg? That Hannibal crossed the Alps? You're trying
to apply the rules of science to history - using a screwdriver to
swage a Nicopress fitting. (Gotta keep SOME homebuilding content in
here.)

BTW, it is NOT my job to convince you. Are you familiar with the
parable of the seeds? "Some fell on rocky ground, some fell on good
soil" - that one. Remember it from Sunday School? My job is not to
make the seeds take root - that's what "convincing you" is. It's
humanly impossible to convince someone who will not be convinced. All
I can do is shoo away birds and maybe pull out a few rocks and weeds.
The rest is up to God.


While I'm not suggesting conspiracy..

It's not a given that the authorities, and there were at least 3 different
authorities, would necessarily have any/all the ringleaders identified,
contacted, threatened and silenced.

The Sanhedrin hauled *Peter* into court. Remember Peter? The leader
of the apostles?

Lack of evidence isn't evidence, so lack of silence doesn't mean there
*wasn't* a conspiracy.

Best to keep your foil hat on tight, then. You never know when THEY
are listening.... :-p


Wrong again, my friend. Have a look at Acts - Within weeks after the
resurrection, Peter was hauled up in court and ordered to stop
preaching. He refused.

You can't use the contents of the bible to defend the veracity of the bible.

I'm not using "The Bible." I'm using the archelogical and documentary
evidence available, which includes several dozen very ancient copies
of a particular document called "Luke/Acts." That document was
written in the late 50's or early 60's, and chronicles important
events in the earliest days of the "Jesus Movement." I take no
position on whether the document is "inspired and infallible" just
because it happens to have been included in the canon of the New
Testament. As an historical record, it stands on its own, with better
scholarly attestation than Caesar's account of the conquest of Gaul.


you do the best you can and hope it's good enough.

So on the question of the resurrection you demand incontrovertible
ironclad proof, but on the question of your *own* eternal fate you're
perfectly satisfied with a fuzzy-wuzzy I'm-ok-you're-ok warm happy
feel-good explanation? Error, Will Robinson! That does not compute!
War-ning! War-ning! *waves vacuum-hose arms* :-D

First, I have no proof (or even suggestion) of an afterlife, so I don't need
hard fast rules to live and die by.


Consider the suggestion made, then: There IS an afterlife. Look into
it. Sure I'm crazy - but what if I'm right?

BTW - If you think that Christianity is about following a set of
rules, you have it very very wrong. The whole point of Christianity
is that humans CAN'T follow even a simple rule like "love your
neighbor." THAT'S why we need a Savior. "Make it up as you go along"
doesn't work.


People are notoriously short sighted, especially where short-term pleasures
vs. long-term benefits are concerned.


You certainly got THAT right!

Corrie

On 02 Sep 2003 02:11 PM, Corrie posted the following:

BTW - If you think that Christianity is about following a set of
rules, you have it very very wrong. The whole point of Christianity
is that humans CAN'T follow even a simple rule like "love your
neighbor." THAT'S why we need a Savior. "Make it up as you go along"
doesn't work.

Speak for yourself.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote
All three forms of logic have their strengths and weaknesses which you
have
to be aware of when using them.

My point exactly. The issue is the initial assumption. I maintain
that you have blinders on with an initial assumption that
"resurrections don't happen unless proven otherwise. "

There's nothing wrong with the assumption that the dead don't rise from the
grave.
We both believe it, just as we both believe that coming back to life would
be an extraordinary event.
The difference is, you believe it happened once, on what I consider flimsy
evidence.

You say, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.".
I say, "it's good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain
falls out."

Good question, and I don't have an answer... but then I don't need to
have
one, convincing me is your job.
If I come across some convincing and acceptable evidence, I'll let you
know,
but nothing I've seen comes even remotely close, so don't hold your
breath


IOW, "I'll know it when I see it?" Oh, c'mon now. That has to be the
ultimate cop-out! It proves my point exactly! Your initial
assumption is that supernatural events DO NOT happen. Not that they
PROBABLY DON'T happen, but that they DO NOT. And with that FAULTY
initial assumption, your deduction winds up wrong.

Not a cop out, and certainly doesn't prove your point.

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.

And while I didn't state it, I don't believe that supernatural events
happen, but that won't prevent me from accepting one given sufficient proof.
However, in the entire history of the world, there hasn't been a single
certifiable, repeatable, supernatural event.
"That's mighty suggestive," he says with tones of massive understatement

"I can't even say what evidence would convince me." Pshaw. Even
Doubting Thomas was able to specify the conditions under which he
would believe.

This is a one-time historical event we are talking about, not a
repeatable experiment. Do you believe that the Saxon King Harold
caught an arrow in the eye at Hastings in 1066? That Pickett led a
charge at Gettysburg? That Hannibal crossed the Alps? You're trying
to apply the rules of science to history - using a screwdriver to
swage a Nicopress fitting. (Gotta keep SOME homebuilding content in
here.)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, mundane claims do not.

Saxon king gets too close to a battle and a random arrow fells him. I'd
believe that.
Civil war general leads civil war charge. Makes sense.
Punic war general takes only unguarded land route to surprise Romans (taking
tremendous losses en route). Sure, why not.

All mundane, if decisive, events. All can be accepted at face value. Most
especially because all could conceivably be simulated if not duplicated.

(And clearly a hammer is the correct tool for swaging. I'm not even sure
what a "screwdriver" is; my toolbox only contains two tools: a hammer and a
bigger hammer :-)

BTW, it is NOT my job to convince you. Are you familiar with the
parable of the seeds? "Some fell on rocky ground, some fell on good
soil" - that one. Remember it from Sunday School? My job is not to
make the seeds take root - that's what "convincing you" is. It's
humanly impossible to convince someone who will not be convinced. All
I can do is shoo away birds and maybe pull out a few rocks and weeds.
The rest is up to God.

Of course I was speaking figuratively. Would you prefer the wording "it's
not my job to prove your case for you" ?

However, my mind is the most fertile of ground and you've cast your seeds.
By your claim God isn't doing his job, ipso facto, there is no God

Lack of evidence isn't evidence, so lack of silence doesn't mean there
*wasn't* a conspiracy.

Best to keep your foil hat on tight, then. You never know when THEY
are listening.... :-p

Again, I'm not, and never have, suggested a conspiracy; I don't require
anything so convoluted.

First, I have no proof (or even suggestion) of an afterlife, so I don't
need
hard fast rules to live and die by.

Consider the suggestion made, then: There IS an afterlife. Look into
it. Sure I'm crazy - but what if I'm right?

I didn't mean suggested by a person, I meant suggested by even the hint of a
shred of the tiniest piece of evidence.

Yes, it's crazy, and the world at large doesn't waste time disproving every
crazy idea. If it did, nothing else would ever get done.
For this reason, crazy ideas have to prove themselves before they're
accepted and the explanation for why they're not crazy to begin with is
found.
This is the cornerstone of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence."

BTW - If you think that Christianity is about following a set of
rules, you have it very very wrong. The whole point of Christianity
is that humans CAN'T follow even a simple rule like "love your
neighbor." THAT'S why we need a Savior. "Make it up as you go along"
doesn't work.

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.

This is a far cry from "Here is a set of rules which your sorry asses can't
be expected to follow in the first place".

Human history and human progress has done just fine "making it up as we go
along".
It has proceeded from before, until after, the supposed resurrection
uninterrupted and unaffected.
It was, both figuratively and literally, a non-event.

Eric

On 2 Sep 2003 18:05:26 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

He and Captain Doug are prime-time entertainment. :-D I dare say I
would pay money for that kind of writing. I think you agree, because
you keep on talking about him.

Cheers,

pacplyer

Does anyone, anywhere, not know that pacplyer is Bill Phillips?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does anyone, anywhere, care?

On 02 Sep 2003 09:47 PM, Corrie posted the following:

Saxon king gets too close to a battle and a random arrow fells him.
I'd believe that. Civil war general leads civil war charge. Makes
sense. Punic war general takes only unguarded land route to surprise
Romans (taking tremendous losses en route). Sure, why not. All
mundane, if decisive, events. All can be accepted at face value. Most
especially because all could conceivably be simulated if not
duplicated.

But why do you believe them as SPECIFIC EVENTS? Not hypothetical
possibilities, but actual things that really happened? The only
records we have are historical documents. So I assume that you must
believe the documents.

In the end, does it matter? The Normans, Romans, and Yankees all won.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Del Rawlins wrote in message ...
On 02 Sep 2003 02:11 PM, Corrie posted the following:

BTW - If you think that Christianity is about following a set of
rules, you have it very very wrong. The whole point of Christianity
is that humans CAN'T follow even a simple rule like "love your
neighbor." THAT'S why we need a Savior. "Make it up as you go along"
doesn't work.

Speak for yourself.


Gee, thank god we have the expert opinion of another troll Del Rawlins
to enlighten us all with his prophetic one liners. This bush pilot
wanna-be is just what the world needs. An accountant in real life (was
I close?) Rawlins hangs out at Lake Hood making up stories and
insinuating that he flys in Alaska. When in reality, he has less than
1000 hours total time, none of it substancial, but he can roar like a
lion in Rah. I ran into imposters like this many a night in the Bush
Company and F street station pretending that they are bonifide
commercial bush pilots. Typically, in fifteen minutes I could tell
whether or not they full of ****. I'm tired of hearing about how much
experience you have in Alaska Del, I betcha I was in that game before
you even got signed off. I bet you haven't even broke away from
Merril Field yet. If you want to contribute to this thread, then post
something using your Gonads. Corrie has gonads. He will post his
convictions for all to read and lay himself open to attack by guys
like me who don't share his sacred beliefs. You on the other hand,
take cheap shots and have this upper 48 fixation, not knowing that
many of us in the lower 48 have more time flying in Alaska than you do
on the barstool spewing tall tales to people who have actually done
these things.

pacplyer - out

On 03 Sep 2003 12:45 AM, pac plyer posted the following:

Gee, thank god we have the expert opinion of another troll Del Rawlins
to enlighten us all with his prophetic one liners. This bush pilot
wanna-be is just what the world needs. An accountant in real life (was
I close?) Rawlins hangs out at Lake Hood making up stories and
insinuating that he flys in Alaska. When in reality, he has less than
1000 hours total time, none of it substancial, but he can roar like a
lion in Rah.

I've been called a lot of things but never an accountant. I'm a low
time private pilot and never claimed to be anything else. If you are
really bored you can look me up in the database and see that I have had
my certificate for less than 5 years. You can't say the same thing
since you do not have the courage to post anything resembling your real
name, and nobody on the newsgroup (at least nobody who has been willing
to admit to it) has so far vouched for your legitimacy.

I ran into imposters like this many a night in the Bush
Company and F street station pretending that they are bonifide
commercial bush pilots. Typically, in fifteen minutes I could tell
whether or not they full of ****. I'm tired of hearing about how much
experience you have in Alaska Del, I betcha I was in that game before
you even got signed off. I bet you haven't even broke away from
Merril Field yet.

I wouldn't know, never having been inside either of those establishments.
I'm a bit surprised that you are tired of hearing about my flying
experience seeing as how I have posted very little of it here. I do not
consider myself a bush pilot, I don't have fancy ratings and have no
interest in such. To me, flying is a tool to get to places I could not
otherwise reach. Period. Several of my closest friends happen to be
bush pilots but that is neither here nor there.

If you want to contribute to this thread, then post
something using your Gonads. Corrie has gonads. He will post his
convictions for all to read and lay himself open to attack by guys
like me who don't share his sacred beliefs. You on the other hand,
take cheap shots and have this upper 48 fixation, not knowing that
many of us in the lower 48 have more time flying in Alaska than you do
on the barstool spewing tall tales to people who have actually done
these things.

No thank you, I have no desire to contribute anything of substance to
this useless thread. You and your fellow anonymous coward can continue
to jerk each other off (and probably will) for another month or two for
all I care. If I am feeling bored, I may or may not continue to snipe
at you from time to time.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Saxon king gets too close to a battle and a random arrow fells him.
I'd believe that. Civil war general leads civil war charge. Makes
sense. Punic war general takes only unguarded land route to surprise
Romans (taking tremendous losses en route). Sure, why not. All
mundane, if decisive, events. All can be accepted at face value. Most
especially because all could conceivably be simulated if not
duplicated.

But why do you believe them as SPECIFIC EVENTS? Not hypothetical
possibilities, but actual things that really happened? The only
records we have are historical documents. So I assume that you must
believe the documents.

In the end, does it matter? The Normans, Romans, and Yankees all won.

Del Rawlins-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wow....
Heavy stuff.
And here it was thought all you knew was welding. g


Barnyard BOb --