Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one? never
mind... into the ring to run for California governor.

It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be.

Do I have to say it?

TOTAL RECALL

Ow! Stop that!

Pete

Pete,
I was thinking, after the way the Senate and Assembly handled the
Budget, we could use a Kindergarten Cop.

Don

PLAlbrecht wrote:

Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one? never
mind... into the ring to run for California governor.

It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be.

Do I have to say it?

TOTAL RECALL

Ow! Stop that!

Pete

I was thinking, after the way the Senate and Assembly handled the
Budget, we could use a Kindergarten Cop.

Oooh, I like it...

And the Terminator tie-ins are obvious too.

Ya know, I think he's gonna make it...

Pete

Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. If I lived out there I
would vote for the stripper. :-)

PLAlbrecht wrote:
Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one? never
mind... into the ring to run for California governor.

It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be.

Do I have to say it?

TOTAL RECALL

Ow! Stop that!

Pete


--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:41:16 -0400, Glenn Ashmore
wrote:

Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts.

You left out the flakes. )
Sue - just waiting to cast her vote for ???????

If I lived out there I
would vote for the stripper. :-)

PLAlbrecht wrote:
Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one? never
mind... into the ring to run for California governor.

It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be.

Do I have to say it?

TOTAL RECALL

Ow! Stop that!

Pete

Sue wrote:

Sue - just waiting to cast her vote for ???????


Sue,
You left out 493 of the ?
Decisions, decisions.

Don

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 04:10:29 GMT, Don Murray
wrote:



Sue wrote:

Sue - just waiting to cast her vote for ???????


Sue,
You left out 493 of the ?
Decisions, decisions.

LOL. Well, I've got a couple of months to weed through the slate.
Sue

Don

I saw something that said that he was pro gun control. Too bad if it's
true. The problem is that he has said next to nothing about his positions
on any kind of issues.

--
Larry Bailey
Illegitimi non carborundum


"PLAlbrecht" wrote in message
...
I was thinking, after the way the Senate and Assembly handled the
Budget, we could use a Kindergarten Cop.

Oooh, I like it...

And the Terminator tie-ins are obvious too.

Ya know, I think he's gonna make it...

Pete

(PLAlbrecht) writes:

It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be.
Do I have to say it?

TOTAL RECALL

Don't forget "The Running Man". Now we know what he's running from, er,
for.

Dave

Ought to be freaky fun. More appealing than the crap coming out of
Washington these days ... body counts in a "won" war, Halliburton
running Iraq, Bush showing his mastery of the unemployment and budget
problems. All we need is an invasion of North Korea to make the picture
complete. Yep, following Arnold will be pure balm.

Regards,

Marv

PLAlbrecht wrote:
Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one? never
mind... into the ring to run for California governor.

It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to be.

Do I have to say it?

TOTAL RECALL

Ow! Stop that!

Pete

It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to
be.
Do I have to say it?

TOTAL RECALL

Don't forget "The Running Man". Now we know what he's running from, er,
for.

Dave


I'm just worried about becoming "Collateral Damage" in this state.

Les

Ian Stirling wrote:
Glenn Ashmore wrote:
Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. If I lived out there I
would vote for the stripper. :-)

It said on my local (BBC) news that she was a porn-star.
Inquiring minds need to know which

I do like to proposed tax on silicone implants.
^the
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
If you've been pounding nails with your forehead for years, it may feel strange
the first time somebody hands you a hammer.
But that doesn't mean that you should strap the hammer to a headband just to
give your skull that old familiar jolt. -- Wayne Throop, during the `TCL Wars'

Arnold will be our new burgermeister. What got me was the tearful exit of
Mr. Issa when he realized he financed Arnold's opportunity.

--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.


"PLAlbrecht" wrote in message
...
Well, Ahnold Schwarzenegger has thrown his... huh? he doesn't wear one?
never
mind... into the ring to run for California governor.

It should be obvious to anybody what the theme of his campaign is going to
be.

Do I have to say it?

TOTAL RECALL

Ow! Stop that!

Pete

Ian Stirling wrote:
Glenn Ashmore wrote:
Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. If I lived out there I
would vote for the stripper. :-)

It said on my local (BBC) news that she was a porn-star.
Inquiring minds need to know which

Investigation found http://www.marycarey.com/ which says she's done both.

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
He had been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers,
which were to be put in vials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air
in raw inclement summers. -- Jonathan Swift, "Gulliver's Travels" (1726)

Ian Stirling wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:

Glenn Ashmore wrote:

Ah, California, the land of fruits and nuts. If I lived out
there I would vote for the stripper. :-)

It said on my local (BBC) news that she was a porn-star. Inquiring
minds need to know which


Investigation found http://www.marycarey.com/ which says she's done
both.

With as many candidates in the race as there are it wouldn't take more
than a few bars full of good ol' boys to get her elected. Wouldn't that
be a trip! :-)

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:42:01 -0700, "LBailey"
wrote:

I saw something that said that he was pro gun control. Too bad if it's
true. The problem is that he has said next to nothing about his positions
on any kind of issues.

He's a definate RINO. Not a true conservative.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:05:25 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:

Arnold will be our new burgermeister. What got me was the tearful exit of
Mr. Issa when he realized he financed Arnold's opportunity.


Especially since I'm sure there's much of a difference between the
dems and Arnold, except that he calls himself a Republican.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

Since both Father John Flanagan and Rush Limbaugh disapprove of
Ahnold, that tends to make me like him all the more.

Fr. Flanagan wrote

Especially since I'm sure there's much of a difference between the
dems and Arnold, except that he calls himself a Republican.

http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s...ape.guest.html

John


Yeah team. About time we had a Republican who hasn't been hijacked by
the religious nutters. I also hear Ahnold is in favor of abortion
(scuse me, "right to choose.") Double yeah team.

I think Ahnold is going to steer clear of any gun control debate. Just
look at his movies; he can't possibly take a "do as I say, not as I
do" stand.

All that said, another candidate who looks good right now is Peter
Ueberroth. The guy can make a business run like a fine watch.

Pete

Topless, right! Drudge cut off her head! 8-)

Leo (pearland, tx)

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:45:33 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Im rather partial to Tom McClintock. He is perhaps the best qualified
of the bunch, but as usual, doesnt stand a chance. He was the
California State Controller for a long time, and during those years we
had a surplus.

OK... looks like we have much better choices this time than in the
last gubernatorial (to determine the next goober?) election.

Maybe we should do this recall, throw-the-bums-out thing more often.
Let them know they don't get a free ride until the next election.

Pete

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:45:50 GMT, Peter Albrecht
wrote:

Since both Father John Flanagan and Rush Limbaugh disapprove of
Ahnold, that tends to make me like him all the more.

Fr. Flanagan wrote

Especially since I'm sure there's much of a difference between the
dems and Arnold, except that he calls himself a Republican.

http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s...ape.guest.html

John


Yeah team. About time we had a Republican who hasn't been hijacked by
the religious nutters.

Love you too Pete :^). We haven't had an abortion debate for what,
four months? Of course since everythings relative you'd be just as
much a nutter as anyone else. BTW, what is your definition of a
nutter anyway? General definition since I assume there's more than
just religious nuts.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:55:46 GMT, Peter Albrecht
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:45:33 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Im rather partial to Tom McClintock. He is perhaps the best qualified
of the bunch, but as usual, doesnt stand a chance. He was the
California State Controller for a long time, and during those years we
had a surplus.

OK... looks like we have much better choices this time than in the
last gubernatorial (to determine the next goober?) election.

Maybe we should do this recall, throw-the-bums-out thing more often.
Let them know they don't get a free ride until the next election.

Pete

Notice the Lefties all starting the mantra (including Huffington the
Space Cadet), that the recall process has outlived its usefulness and
that option should be removed from the voters?

Chuckle...they want to take away the only Emergency Stop button that
they have left the voters. Some Leftist was babbling, on the radio
the other day, how the (in effect) the voters should not be allowed to
have any say over how the politicians operate.

I rather think, that in any election, the loosers are immediately
taken out and hung from the nearest lamp post. It would be Darwin in
action.

Gunner


Gunner

"What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs

In article , John Flanagan says...

Love you too Pete :^). We haven't had an abortion debate for what,
four months?

Well I've been good....

Of course since everythings relative you'd be just as
much a nutter as anyone else. BTW, what is your definition of a
nutter anyway? General definition since I assume there's more than
just religious nuts.

He was being specific. "Religious" qualified the term, so that
does a pretty good job of trimming down the field. I'm sure
he has about a dozen overall catagories he could trot out.

Tinfoil beanies anyone?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:25:48 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

snip

I rather think, that in any election, the loosers are immediately
taken out and hung from the nearest lamp post. It would be Darwin in
action.

The trouble is that in California, at least, the losers in almost
every election are the public at large. Obviously, we need more lamp
posts.

Al Moore

Gunner wrote in message . ..

snip


Im rather partial to Tom McClintock. He is perhaps the best qualified
of the bunch, but as usual, doesnt stand a chance. He was the
California State Controller for a long time, and during those years we
had a surplus.

Gunner

"What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs

You might try getting your facts straight. Mr. McClintock has NEVER
been the California State Controller. He has, I believe, run for the
office twice and lost both times (1994 & 2002). He served seven terms
in the Assembly (1982 - 1992 and 1996 - 2000) and is currently in his
first term in the Senate.

Jerry

On 10 Aug 2003 17:12:02 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , John Flanagan says...

Love you too Pete :^). We haven't had an abortion debate for what,
four months?

Well I've been good....

Of course since everythings relative you'd be just as
much a nutter as anyone else. BTW, what is your definition of a
nutter anyway? General definition since I assume there's more than
just religious nuts.

He was being specific. "Religious" qualified the term, so that
does a pretty good job of trimming down the field. I'm sure
he has about a dozen overall catagories he could trot out.

Tinfoil beanies anyone?

Well yes but I was looking for the foundational definition for a nut.
One that can be applied to all catagories of nuts. But since you
mention tinfoil beanies I think I see what it might be. Perhaps:

Someone who believes something when even a casual examination would
show it to be non-sense. Or perhaps, someone who believes something
without any halfway sensible reasoning to support his conclusions.

Which means someone shouldn't be considered a nut if they haven't
thought the idea through *and* have not acted on the idea (taking
action makes you responsible whether you have thought it through or
not). Or, if someone has a "plausible", if not completely well
founded, basis for believing something. A key character for either of
these persons would be their willingness to listen to and address
arguments against what they believe. A real nutter wouldn't do this.

Of course these are relative definitions so in my opinion they aren't
too good or reliable. An absolute definition would be much better
:^).

I must say it really does amaze me how some people can come to the
conclusions they do :^).

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

I'm in the Gunners court on this one - best man - I just hope it
sorts out to one on each side in the next few weeks.


I've listened to Tom McClintock over the years and he hasn't
wavered in this thoughts. Some do like the wind.

Martin
--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

"Alan Moore" wrote in message
...
The trouble is that in California, at least, the losers in almost
every election are the public at large. Obviously, we need more lamp
posts.

Especially since it's still going to be a few milion years before CA falls
into the ocean.

Tim

--
In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!"
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On 10 Aug 2003 20:27:56 -0700, (Jerry) wrote:

Gunner wrote in message . ..

snip


Im rather partial to Tom McClintock. He is perhaps the best qualified
of the bunch, but as usual, doesnt stand a chance. He was the
California State Controller for a long time, and during those years we
had a surplus.

Gunner

"What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs

You might try getting your facts straight. Mr. McClintock has NEVER
been the California State Controller. He has, I believe, run for the
office twice and lost both times (1994 & 2002). He served seven terms
in the Assembly (1982 - 1992 and 1996 - 2000) and is currently in his
first term in the Senate.

Jerry

Really? I thought he was Wilsons comptroler or some such. No matter, I
still like the way he talks and never wavers

Gunner

"What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs

In article , Peter Albrecht says...

Things like, oh, the concept of evolution,
let's say. Ergo, they are real nutters.

I would point out for the sake of completeness that
there *are* deeply religious people out there, who
see no conflict between faith and science - specifically
biology and evolution. Those do exist.


he's running as a Republican then, because the Libertarians might as
well change their name to "The Party That Can't Get Elected."

LOL!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:23:35 -0500, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

"Alan Moore" wrote in message
.. .
The trouble is that in California, at least, the losers in almost
every election are the public at large. Obviously, we need more lamp
posts.

Especially since it's still going to be a few milion years before CA falls
into the ocean.

Actually, until recently (geologically speaking), things were falling
out of the ocean onto California. Rising sea levels could inundate a
lot of the state, as there are several hundred square miles that are
less than 10 feat above mean high water, but other than that,
California is likely to get larger before it gets smaller through
geophysical processes.

Al Moore

"Alan Moore" wrote in message
...
Rising sea levels could inundate a
lot of the state, as there are several hundred square miles that are
less than 10 feat above mean high water

- And some under sea level, Death Valley for instance. Imagine that
hotspot being 200' underwater...

Tim

--
In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!"
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:10:39 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
I have no problem with evolution either, in the generic sense. I have
a problem with Darwinian "random chance" evolution as being
astronomically improbable. Statistically it'd be easier to believe in
God than to believe in molecules bumping together producing anything
as complex as an ameoba.

Perhaps that's because you are profoundly ignorant of the rules
of carbon chemistry. Molecular collisions are random, but the
results depend on the rules of carbon chemistry, and those rules
are definitely *not* random.

Gary

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 04:51:11 -0400, Gary R Coffman
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:10:39 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
I have no problem with evolution either, in the generic sense. I have
a problem with Darwinian "random chance" evolution as being
astronomically improbable. Statistically it'd be easier to believe in
God than to believe in molecules bumping together producing anything
as complex as an ameoba.

Perhaps that's because you are profoundly ignorant of the rules
of carbon chemistry. Molecular collisions are random, but the
results depend on the rules of carbon chemistry, and those rules
are definitely *not* random.

Am I incorrect in believing that scientists have not created any
organic materials by "primordial" means more complex than amino acids?

I agree about the randomness of molecular interaction and also that
chemical law dictates the results of these interactions. But it's an
astronomically huge, unsubstantiated leap of faith, shall we call it,
to say that these chemical laws dictate the eventual assension to
organic molecules as complex as DNA. Or that there have ever been in
the history of the universe enough chemical interactions to make
plausible the development of incredibly complex DNA even "if" the laws
dictated it.

I thought a main notion of science was repeatability (when
applicable), why can't they repeat it?

Most evolutionists seem so sure about macro evolution when there is at
least an equally plausible explanation of the unsubstantiated process,
namely preexistant complexity. The idea that God created the first
DNA so that it would replicate and evolve itself into all the
succeeding species. Basically what Darwin says, except for this
conflict between design and randomness.

The unresolvable difference between the two camps is that one is
believes God exists and the other says there is no God. No matter how
high the evidence is piled for either camp's argument, the other will
not agree. Because this assumption, if you will, is the basis for
their entire world view. We can't let that get shaken can we. It
would take a truly honest and humble individual to change his mind and
it would be a radical change affecting his whole life.


John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

In article , John Flanagan says...

I agree about the randomness of molecular interaction and also that
chemical law dictates the results of these interactions. But it's an
astronomically huge, unsubstantiated leap of faith, shall we call it,
to say that these chemical laws dictate the eventual assension to
organic molecules as complex as DNA.

And yet that is the exact belief that many scientists, those
who find no incompatibility between science and religion,
place their stock in.

Basically it's truly a matter of faith for them. Who
are you to gainsay their faith?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:10:39 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:

snip

I have no problem with evolution either, in the generic sense. I have
a problem with Darwinian "random chance" evolution as being
astronomically improbable. Statistically it'd be easier to believe in
God than to believe in molecules bumping together producing anything
as complex as an ameoba.

Evolution says nothing about the beginning of life. Only about how,
once created, it came to appear as we see it. Evolution is based
primarily on statistical effects on large numbers over time. When life
began there was only one living thing. If you want to get into the
initial creation of life, you're involving a different discussion
altogether.

snip

Al Moore

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:16:15 GMT, (John
Flanagan) wrote:

snip

Am I incorrect in believing that scientists have not created any
organic materials by "primordial" means more complex than amino acids?

That depends on what you mean by "more complex." Bear in mind that
some amino acids are more complex than others. Also detected in the
Harold Urey experiments are nucleic acids, organic acids, alcohols,
amines, amides...

Urey was asked "what do you expect to find?" He replied "Beilstein."
-- a reference to the compendium of all of the well known organic
compounds.

Al Moore

snip

On 12 Aug 2003 12:21:44 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , John Flanagan says...

I agree about the randomness of molecular interaction and also that
chemical law dictates the results of these interactions. But it's an
astronomically huge, unsubstantiated leap of faith, shall we call it,
to say that these chemical laws dictate the eventual assension to
organic molecules as complex as DNA.

And yet that is the exact belief that many scientists, those
who find no incompatibility between science and religion,
place their stock in.

Basically it's truly a matter of faith for them. Who
are you to gainsay their faith?

Certainly not I, as long as it's presented as faith and not science
:^). The thing I find most offensive about evolution as it is
typically presented publically and in the schools is that it is taught
as "fact" and the only "plausible" explanation for why life exists.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

In article , John Flanagan says...

:^). The thing I find most offensive about evolution as it is
typically presented publically and in the schools is that it is taught
as "fact" and the only "plausible" explanation for why life exists.

This is exactly what I am saying. The folks in question
(religious scientists) absolutely DO agree that (your term here)
'random chance evolution' is fact, and is indeed the
only plausible explaination why life exists. Yet they
can recononcile this as being compatible with theism. Like I
said, it's a matter of faith. You need to be more accepting of
others' faith John.

Just because you think god isn't smart enough to think up
random chance evolution, or good enough to implement it,
doesn't mean it hasn't been done yet. I've commented on this
interchange before, but to re-iterate:

"God does not play dice" (einstein)
"Don't tell god what do to." (bohr)

As an exercise, what were they discussing, and what
gave the second gent the gumption to step on the
first man's toes?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:16:15 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 04:51:11 -0400, Gary R Coffman
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:10:39 GMT, (John Flanagan) wrote:
I have no problem with evolution either, in the generic sense. I have
a problem with Darwinian "random chance" evolution as being
astronomically improbable. Statistically it'd be easier to believe in
God than to believe in molecules bumping together producing anything
as complex as an ameoba.

Perhaps that's because you are profoundly ignorant of the rules
of carbon chemistry. Molecular collisions are random, but the
results depend on the rules of carbon chemistry, and those rules
are definitely *not* random.

Am I incorrect in believing that scientists have not created any
organic materials by "primordial" means more complex than amino acids?

Indeed you are incorrect. The key to larger more complex structures is
the amino acid serine. It has strong chirality, which very strongly influences
other amino acids to join together in more complex molecules with the
characteristic left handed twist of living things. As one Purdue researcher
put it recently, it is the bouncer in the dance club of primordial chemicals.
In other words, it takes much of the "chance" you keep rattling on about
out of the picture.

I agree about the randomness of molecular interaction and also that
chemical law dictates the results of these interactions. But it's an
astronomically huge, unsubstantiated leap of faith, shall we call it,
to say that these chemical laws dictate the eventual assension to
organic molecules as complex as DNA. Or that there have ever been in
the history of the universe enough chemical interactions to make
plausible the development of incredibly complex DNA even "if" the laws
dictated it.

As I said, your knowledge of carbon chemistry is sadly lacking.

Gary