Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 31465

Directory

Trade MEIJI Microscope
Trade MEIJI Microscope for PC or HiFi equipment of equal value
Lab quality Stereo and mono viewing. Like new totally Awesome   
w/Xenon illumination thru the optics cost approximately $2000 new
Please email if interested..............Frank

In article <4v0l4p$9q0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, WBelch 
writes
>When the meteorite was ejected from Mars by the impact of a larger object
>on Mars, the impact would undoubtedly partially melt the rock.  it is this
>partially melted rock (shock-melted glass) that is radiometrically dated. 
>This gives the 'shock age' of the rock at meteorite at 16 Ma.
Could you please give a more thorough explanation of how this works - 
not hugely technical?
-- 
Jon Guite

I've got to catch a flight in a few hours, but
just have to respond to this thread.
I believe in God. I also believe that God created 
this universe. I also design electronic circuits 
and systems. I've been doing this for several decades,
and so far none of my circuits ever designed itself
and none of my program bugs ever corrected itself.
Forrest M. Mims III

On Sun, 18 Aug 1996 01:23:02 GMT, dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) wrote:
-If you do not want to see the postings from AP put him in your killfile;
-if you do not want to see follow-ups create a killfile line that will
-kill for you all posts that mention AP.  And if that fails kill a thread
-that originates from AP.  And if your newsreader does not support
-killfiles get a more recent and decent one (like one created in the last
-15 years or something like that).  And if your ISP does not allow you
-to use different newsreaders, get one that lets you forge the
-X-Newsreader line in the headers.  And if you do not want to read from
-or about AP, never, but never, follow-up to the articles you do not want
-to read (this is in itself always good to remember; your follow-up will
-create other follow-ups you also do not want to read).
Behold! The ostrich syndrome at work. 
The stink is still there but since you have your fingers firmly jammed into
your nose and your head buried in the sand so you neither see nor smell it.
It is, however, still there stinking up the landscape. 
-And, no, I can but do not use killfiles.
But I'll bet it's a bitch getting that sand out of your ears.
Followups severly trimmed. No need to stink up the landscape quite this
badly:
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc, sci.math, sci.logic, sci.physics,
sci.bio.misc, sci.chem, sci.geo.geology, sci.astro, sci.engr,
dartmouth.alt.employees.discuss.procedures, news.groups,
alt.sci.physics.plutonium
--
Dave Ratcliffe                           dave@frackit.com
Harrisburg, Pa. 
Email to this account may be posted to the net
Unsolicited email advertisments will be returned to sender x 10 or better.

palane@cpt1.physics.utah.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
>
>I would emphasize Eric's point. This is *NOT* like cold fusion. The paper
>had been *accepted*. Cold fusion was *not*. 
This is a patently false statement.  Pons and Fleischman held their 
press conference after their paper had been accepted for publication. 
Jones' paper had been submitted, but not accepted, but his press 
conference was in response to that of P&F; and, further, the abstract 
for his invited paper at the Spring APS meeting had been submitted 
and printed but not yet mailed at that time.  It arrived in my mailbox 
a few weeks later. 
>              ....                     One key difference between cold
>fusion and this discovery is that the authors are making their rock available
>for peers to check their work. Pons and Fleischmann were quite secretive about
>their methods.
This is true, and the only significant point.  However, it should be noted 
that Jones was not similarly secretive about his work.  P&F; went public 
for very specific reasons.  The leak that was used to work around the 
embargo on the Science paper concerning possible life on Mars may have 
been done for similar reasons, but I have never heard any explanation 
of who was responsible for this leak. 
>
>
>-- 
>Paul Lane	Tel: (801) 581-4402	Fax: (801) 581-4801
>Department of Physics (201 JFB); University of Utah; Salt Lake City, UT 84112
>Moving to Sheffield, England as of 01/97 (p.lane@sheffield.ac.uk)
>
>
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Olympics report: whitewater slalom 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  and track&field; were awesome in  
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  person.  Page with some of my  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  kayak photos will be coming soon. 

I wrote:
|
| >Bull.  You can't seriously believe microchip computers came out of the
| >space program, can you?
| 
| I know I don't.  However, the initial market for integrated circuits 
| and the powerful experimental computers that we now see as important 
| came from various government programs - space, military, and research 
| on university campuses.  Enterprises that are not tied too closely to 
| a bottom line can work more easily on the bleeding edge of technology. 
singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) writes:
>
>The real impetus for the general development of computers to what they are
>today  was commercial.  The real market for integrated circuits which
>probably drove most innovations again was the commercial/consumer market.
That may be true late in the development of the technology, but back in 
the early 70s the commercial market wanted mainframes, not a Cray without 
any operating system or an 8080 chip.  There was no consumer market until 
the 8080 was diverted to that purpose by hobbyists.  The internet was a 
DARPA project, Unix was made into what it is today at Berkeley, and the 
first market for minis was in the lab.  
>      ...        rather those which Sen. Proxmire would have reveled in
>pointing out.  
Proxmire never read past the title of the research proposal, since he was 
looking for something catchy to get publicity. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Olympics report: whitewater slalom 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  and track&field; were awesome in  
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  person.  Page with some of my  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  kayak photos will be coming soon. 

In article <01bb8b42$1a9e3960$0f02000a@nils.eskimo.com>,
  wrote:
>
>Mars is a planet, as is Earth.  If there can be a 'meteorite' from
>Mars,
>should we then be able to find Earth 'meteorites' on Mars ??
>
Perhaps. However Earth is much further from the asteroid belt, has a 
much denser atmosphere and higher escape velocity, so it's much less 
likely that a big meteorite will hit Earth and knock off something with 
enough energy to reach Mars. than that a big meteorite will hit Mars 
and knock off something with enough energy to reach Earth.
In addition, it's rather unlikely that anytime soon there will be a 
comprehensive enough search of Mars's surface to find any stuff from 
Earth that may have arrived there without human aid.
John Harper Mathematics Dept. Victoria University Wellington New Zealand

john@mail.petcom.com (John S.) writes:
>
>Hey, I agree totally. Everybody accepts that this rock came from Mars,
>because of what evidence? 
This rock was identified as being of likely Martian origin well before 
and separately from the study being reported in Science this weekend. 
The first identification of a meteorite from Mars was circa 1983. 
>Maybe it's the same kind as the ones they
>picked up on the last Mars-walk? 
Exactly right.  You do remember the Viking lander and the studies it 
made of Martian rocks and atmospher as well as its search for living 
things on Mars?  These rocks have properties not found in rocks from 
the earth or the moon, or the meteorites that come from the moon, but 
are consistent with properties found on Mars. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Olympics report: whitewater slalom 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  and track&field; were awesome in  
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  person.  Page with some of my  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  kayak photos will be coming soon. 

In article <4v3plv$a28@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi) writes:
> First, some in this group have had problem to understand my "windows" 
> in terms  of  (Army/Navy) duration and European/Amarican langage 
> (International langage -1 to 12 AM then 1200 PM to 24.00
> PM hours etc.. 
"-1" ??? I thought army/international went from 0:00 to 23:59,
no am or pm, and definitely no negative numbers.
[major snippage]
> My window are simply 
> (cyclonic Resonance).
This is not (a sentence).
Turi, English is not your first language, is it? Maybe you could
hire a ghost writer for your posts. I find them unintelligible.
> One vector is the DC frequency coming from the 
> earth and the other "AC vector" from our solar system.
I'm only a poor math Ph.D. Please explain what you mean by a 'vector'.
>  Our bodies, 
> brains, earth are literally electromagnetic fields that vibrate
> within these two vectors.
*Two* vectors? What's the other one? And I assure you, my body
is not "literally" an electromagnetic field.
Victor.
-- 
405 Hilgard Ave ................................. `We are in danger of getting
Department of Mathematics, UCLA ............. government by the clueless, over
Los Angeles CA 90024 ................. a place they've never been, using means
phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 ....... they don't possess' [John Perry Barlow]
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout/

I wrote:
| 
| singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) writes:
| >
| >Please.  Spend ten minutes looking at the cost and realizing what a shaft
| >we got in a cost benefit ratio for most of those items.
| 
| Weather satellites. 
| 
| Orbital observations of weather have more than paid for the entire 
| space program. 
singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) writes:
>
>Naturally you can put this in dollars and cents, right?   
I could, but I figured I would leave it up to you.  It does depend 
on what value you place on a human life, or on a few thousand. 
>This is an outrageous claim.  Why try to slip this past us?
I didn't try to slip anything by you.  Anyone with a minimal knowledge 
of the death rate from what are considered minor hurricanes today would 
realize there is nothing outrageous about it.  We were dangerously 
close to trying the experiment due to some major screwups by NASA and 
its contractors.  The public outcry would not have been pretty ugly. 
Actually, it was pretty ugly when the NWS missed a 'tropical' storm 
that hit in the winter because they weren't looking for one.  No 
evacuation = half-a-dozen dead.  
|         ....               It is also possible that communication 
| satellites have played an important role in stabilizing the world 
| situation politically, but that is unknowable in any realistic 
| analysis.
>So then why bring it up?
So you might think about it, and perhaps place a subjective value on 
peaceful rather than military resolution of some conflicts in the past 
few decades.  Not everything can be reduced to dollars and cents. 
|   The contrast between recent hurricanes and those of the 
| not-so-distant past is quite clear and significant. 
>No two are alike.
Right.  Some are worse.  People also forget that almost no one, compared 
to today's populations, lived in some of the places where thousands died. 
>Just how does it kill pet birds.  Are they coating bb's with it?;-).  Or
>does your parrot keep slipping off his teflon perch? :-).
This is not a joke.  People unaware of this problem have lost an entire 
aviary of breeding birds worth tens of thousands of dollars, or a pet they 
paid thousands for.  Teflon produces toxic fumes when used at cooking 
temperatures that will kill a bird on the other side of the house.  
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Olympics report: whitewater slalom 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  and track&field; were awesome in  
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  person.  Page with some of my  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  kayak photos will be coming soon. 

To all evolutionists and creationists involved in this BORING
argument that will never be resolved because all of you on bOTH
sides in a thread like this are too bigoted to accept ANYTHING
the other side says.....YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
......just shake your head at what you read and go on with
life.....it's too short to argue about something the other side
from your belief will NEVER agree with.....  :)
(written with tongue firmly planted in cheek)
Ron
---
"I'm beginning to see the appeal of this program."
 (Lt. Worf; STAR TREK: The Next Generation)

Doug Shakel wrote:
> 
> In article ,
>    mick@quicklink.com (Mick F. Cantarella) wrote:
> >Who thought of the name Earth? Who first realized it is
> >round? Columbus?
> >Just curious. Thanks for any info.  -Mick
> 
> Re: the word Earth is allegedly (according to my cheap,
> paperback dictionary) of Old English origins.
> 
> With respect to it being round, that was recognized in many
> cultures, at least as long ago as 2300 yrs.  The Greeks
> concentrated in Alexandria, Egypt included a guy named
> Eratosthenes, who measured the size of the earth to within a
> pretty good accuracy (I don't recall the numerical
> precision) of the value we use today by observations of
> shadow-lengths at noon on the summer solstice and using the
> detailed land surveys available for the Nile valley between
> Aswan and the Delta.
> 
> Medieval sculptors usually showed the earth as a sphere in
> church sculpture even hundreds of years before Columbus.
> And Arab / Islamic scholars also recognize the round earth.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the Chinese and Indian astronomers
> also considered the earth to be round as well.
> 
> --Doug ShakelPtolomy had a may of Africa and Europe that was more or less correct 
several hundred years before Christ.  They knew the earth was round then.
For a good simple rundown on this read "The Mapmakers".  I can't think of 
the author at the moment and the book is put away.  It is a wondreful 
book.  If anyone replies, I will get the author's name   He wrote severla 
other books of the same ilk.   The Discovers,  and others.
Fred

In article <4v2kuh$155@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, 
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu says...
>
> ....  "---" on the other hand is  a
>youngster prankster playground to manipulate and to subvert ...
Archie, you have probably noticed that a few people do not take your
contributions well.
 I have a suggestion, a serious and well-intended suggestion, that I
suspect could transform you into a well-regarded, even cherished
contributor.
Take a look at the prose fragment I quoted above.
Can't you see the poetic drive that is impelling you?
 How about reviewing the sonnet form ( the World just can't get
enough sonnets) and unleashing your wide-ranging intellect on this 
art-form.
 I think you would be pleased with the response.
Sincerely,
brian whatcott 
Altus OK

In article <4v2kuh$155@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, 
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu says...
>
> ....  "---" on the other hand is  a
>youngster prankster playground to manipulate and to subvert ...
Archie, you have probably noticed that a few people do not take your
contributions well.
 I have a suggestion, a serious and well-intended suggestion, that I
suspect could transform you into a well-regarded, even cherished
contributor.
Take a look at the prose fragment I quoted above.
Can't you see the poetic drive that is impelling you?
 How about reviewing the sonnet form ( the World just can't get
enough sonnets) and unleashing your wide-ranging intellect on this 
art-form.
 I think you would be pleased with the response.
Sincerely,
brian whatcott 
Altus OK

In article <4v2is2$erl@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>   Let me say here and now that I believe science peering into the past
> is not that important as science peering into the future. What I mean
> is that science at its best is the making of laws which are useful in
> ushering the new future. Pragmatic science, so what if we find out
> exactly what killed the dinosaurs, lest we be invaded and gone extinct
> ourselves and should we have worried more about future seeking science
> could we have prevented our extinction. Using science for past history
> is not that important and so the whole science of paleontology or
> archeology or so many other sciences which study the old are never as
> important as the leading cutting edge of sciences.Sciences such as
> superconductivity, genome project, cloning, those, those should receive
> the lionshare of money and should receive the most attention.
> >   Does it really matter whether the dinosaurs extincted from colder
> weather with rats and other mammals eating their eggs or something
> else. Sure science wants to know it all, no matter how unimportant or
> irrelevant.
> 
>   This is what I mean and emphasize that MISPLACED IMPORTANCE is
> everywhere and we had better sit down and think of what science
> priorities are and should be on the top of our agenda.
> 
>   Science is everywhere, into the figuring out of the dead sea scrolls
> to realize that Jesus was an ordinary human who got "mythologized" to
> figuring out how the dinosaurs died within a 100,000 year period. But
> is that really that important, and I say no, it is not important as
> superconductivity and genome and cloning.
> 
>   Science at its best as I think of it is the science of Faraday,
> Maxwell, Bohr, Debroglie, Dirac, the ones who looked for the laws, not
> the ones who used science for the past. Science of the future use is
> always more important than using science to peer back into the past.
> 
  I must respond to this misconception of earth science. Understanding the
past record of change on earth is VITAL to understanding many dynamic
earth processes. The past record of climate, ecological, and carbon cycle
change is the only mechanism available for science to evaluate models that
attempt to forecast global changes of the future. If the models can
"hindcast" the past history, then we have some confidence in what they
tell us about the future. THe idea is that human beings are perturbing the
earth, with consequences (if any) that are difficult to predict. We can
take advantage of the fact that natural perturbations have occurred in the
past to gain insight into the sensitivity of climate/ecosystems/the carbon
cycle to the human impact.
Archimedes may be confused about the idea of science being "predictive,"
and think this type of hypothesis formation/testing can only be done
forward in time, when hindcasting is an important process in developing
many types of models (economic, weather, sociological, etc.). 
It's worth pointing out that  astrophysical observations have played a key
role in gaining insight into fundamental physics processes, and these
observations are in essence a "fossil" record - much of the radiation (in
whatever part of the spectrum) that reaches observatories was generated by
events that occurred a long time ago. Physicists may want to weigh in here
with some more insight.
*********************************************************************
Will Howard          Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre   
University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia
Antarctic CRC Homepage:   http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/antcrc.html
E-mail: Will.Howard@antcrc.utas.edu.au
Phones: 61 02 207888(sec'y)  61 02 207859(office)  61 02 202973 (fax)
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
Will Howard          Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre   
University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia
Antarctic CRC Homepage:   http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/antcrc.html
E-mail: Will.Howard@antcrc.utas.edu.au
Phones: 61 02 207888(sec'y)  61 02 207859(office)  61 02 202973 (fax)
*********************************************************************

Inligtingstudies 9 wrote:
> 
> Evolution should disprove the existance of a controlling intelligence but
> I believe it does the opposite.For an organism or rather a collection of
> cells to realise that it would fair better to have,say,a thick coat of
> fur to cope with the cold,and then to go about changing its body over
> thousands of years implies that an intelligence controls it all.
Do you understand evolution AT ALL? The organism doesn't "decide" to 
change. Random changes occur all the time and the ones that make the 
animal more suited to its environment are reproduced more, as more of 
that kind of animal survives. There's no controlling force behind 
evolution except the random and natural mutation of DNA.
-- 
  		  Johnny Marr - wadh0269@sable.ox.ac.uk
	     Webpage at- http://www.wadham.ox.ac.uk/~jstacey
	     I left the North again, I travelled South again

In article ,
Kennedy   wrote:
>In article <4v5far$gr4@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, Brad J Cadle um.gas.uug.arizona.edu> writes
>>Intersting I wasn't aware the Phillips was a netherland company.
>>was it developed by in netherland or Here in the U.S. by U.S. citizens?
>WHAT !?~%&!!!
>Philips of Eindhoven.
>For christ sake, Eindhoven is near as dammit ONLY Philips - and BTW
>their is ONLY one L.  Even PSV Eindhoven football team is the COMPANY
>TEAM!
>
>I never realised that Americans were SO ignorant of the rest of the
>world UNTIL I read this thread.
>
>>It looks like I stand Corrected.
>TOO RIGHT
>
>_______________________________________________________
>Kennedy
>Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
>A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
>Python Philosophers
	Boy, Kennedy you have a REAL problem!!! All I said was that
 didn't know that Philips was a netherland company. I said that 
 as a statement of fact.  It was in response to finding out that
 that philips is a netherland company.  In other words I was 
 admiting to my mistake.  In addition, if you look at my original
 post I was stating that charles Cagle was WRONG in saying that
 all technologie that become standardized, are based on american acceptance.
 ALthough, I did say that he might be right in general.  Clearly my 
 CD example was wrong (At least in terms of where it was invented).
 Indeed the US, ,might not be the litmus test in general. My point is I was on 
 your side on this one.  If you couldn't see that than perhaps you need
 to open your eyes.  Incidently, I apologize on be half of all
 americans for not knowing the country of origin for philips is the netherlands.
						-Brad	

Followups restricted.  Resume crossposting at your own risk.
In article <321416b8.25624081@news.netconnect.com.au>,
Bradley Kranz  wrote:
}gnewman@iglou.com (Greg 'Bonz' Newman) wrote:
}> You're talking about Haeckel, and 'ontogeny recapulates
}>phylogeny'.
}>
}> This wasn't fraud by any means -- it was a serous, though
}>mistaksn, hypothesis.
}
}This definitely was a fraud.  Haeckel altered diagrams to fit his
}hypothesis.   He altered diagrams of the human embyro and the embyro
}of the species he was comparing it to.  To try and make the different
}stages of the human embyro look like the embyro of an animal at a
}particular time of its gestation.
Full bibliographic references, please.
-- 
-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston

Jerry Teach wrote regarding Creation VS Evolution:
> 
> ... Actually it's the place for me to bow out :] I'm definatly not an
> authority on creation science...actually my science knowledge in general
> is very scare. I've read the arguments on both sides and done a little
> research on my own to decipher the arguments going on in here. My faith
> is based mainly on personal experiences which really aren't accepted
> material for an argument of this type. I'm sure there are some very
> intelectual and knowledgable creationists in here that would love to
> take up the conversation. I'd just hate to make an idiot of myself
> jumping into an argument in which I have no valid contribution to make.
> If you'd like to hear some of my personel experiences, let me know. I'd
> love to hear what you think caused them, just out of curiousity. Sorry
> if I let ya down. I just prefer to be honest from the start. I've seen
> people on both sides of the coin jump in over their heads and try to
> compensate by typing in other peoples articles or making illogical
> arguments and then when both sides get frustrated the personal attacks
> start up :]  I never have been too much into science. I'm a musician..
> can't stand numbers but I sure love notes :]
> 
> 
> > rocks, and for evolution as a means of generating biological diversity
> > through which organisms can adapt themselves to their environment, for
> > creation theory to hold much weight in the recent past. But eons ago -
> > who knows.
> >
> 
> God Bless (I ask God to bless everyone, take no offense)
> 
> Jerry Teach
On the Contrary Jerry!  In my opinion, personal testimony is every bit
of a match for scientific fact.  Look at it this way.  Science is
limited in its method due to its inability to explain, measure, or
express the supernatural or anything else the finite human mind is
unable to understand.  For man to assume that everything must be
explainable or measurable is even more of a stretch than believing in a
supernatural God.  
Stewart Ewing

dmsmith@io.com (Daniel M. Smith ) wrote:
>      But, I thought that the conventional wisdom says that the earth's
>atmosphere has evolved; changing, over eons, from a reducing atmosphere,
>consisting largely of hydrogen and methane, to the oxidizing atmosphere
>which now exists. Indeed I believe that it is said that plant life
>generates the oxygen in the atmosphere.
>      Can anyone comment on this?
>Regards,
>Dan Smith
I have heard of a theory that claimed the oxygen came from the
decomposition of water vapor at high altitude with the hydrogen being
lost in space due to its low mass. However, I think that the
production of it from plant life is much more plausible.

>    Creation theory should not conflict with scientific evidence if it
>claims to be the truth.  As a physicist and theologian, I would
>disagree with you that respectability is not important.  ;-)
theologians can't be physicists. it's a law or something.

Hello all,
I am interested in geological maps of biological and chemical
ingredients of soil.  
Who knows where to get any data or information about this subject ? 
Are those information available at any site ? 
I am fond of getting any little piece of information concerning this
subject !!
Thanks in advance !
Johannes Doll

There goes the neighborhood. I thought this was supposed to be a
moderated newsgroup...

In article , zoner@indirect.com writes:
|> At least the theory of gravity can be demonstrated and repeated...
Can you please demonstrate for me the orbit of pluto?  Once you do
that, can you please repeat it?
-- 
Regards,		-- Standard Disclaimer
Wayne.		

Just one question ..
How many creationists are non religious ??
If the answer is very few, if any (the most likely answer) , then its about religion,
nothing to do with science.
In which case any argument is futile because the argument is prejuduced from the 
one side already (although the creationists will try and say otherwise).
If the creationist always has to fall back on the bible , then logically , the argument
is always about the validity of the contents of one book and one book alone.
(yes i know it is an anthology of many books !)
Anyone so naive as to put their absolute faith in the teachings of one book , which
as part of its teachings implies that anything not in agreement with the book is 
wrong will always be immune to logical argument and sway.
Fine , believe what you want , its a free world at the moment.
But if you creationists have your way , it wouldn't be for much longer.
Creatonists are the thought police of our minds
Subversive and devisive.
In america they appear to be on the upsurge both religiously and politically.
This is fine so long as they keep their mischief in the states.
The rest of the world tends to look at the states as a bunch of nuts and 
psyco-analytical junkies. Where else in the world does every second person 
appear to have their own shrink ??
Should this movement continue un-checked then we will again enter the thousand 
year long darkages. Books will be burnt (the've already got rid of noddy , big ears 
and the golly wog) , galileo ,einstein and the internet will be forgotten.
But hey they use the internet now, why would they get rid of it ??
Simple , they can use the tools of satan for the puposes of good , but when 
finished they must be discarded. After all how can you control peoples thoughts if 
they are free to express themselves uncensored. we are still a long way from 
being able to have s/w monitoring every email sent !!!
Fine , teach your kids that the dinosaurs were wiped out in the great biblical flood.
You are welcome to your own brand of insanity.
If i were to go around saying 'i can see fire breathing green dragons and talk to 
them every day and they tell me what to do' , it wouldn't be long before i was 
locked up the nearest loony bin.
But if i say 'i talk to god every day , he guides me and help me througfh my life' 
then everythings ok. Funny old world isn't it.
It just a question of  socially acceptable & unacceptable insanity.
You can no more prove your god's existance than i could prove the existence of 
my green dragon. Likewise you couldn't disprove him either. After all my green 
dragon only reveals himself to those that believe and follow his word according to 
the holy dragon scriptures.
Sorry i have top cut this email short now, he has just told me that i must go forth 
and preach his word.
Only those that believe can go to dragon land after death.
There is only one dragon who was and always will be.
The dragon created the heavens and earth in 6 hours having taken 2 hrs for lunch
and knocked off at 5PM. ( he is very powerful so didn't need 6 days !!)
Anyone who disbelieves does so because the evil witch zelda (who was once the 
dragons right hand) has been sent to tempt us away from the true light.
Zelda came to earth 2000 yrs ago as a false prophet to start a religion to turn man 
away from the true light.
Unless these sinners repent , then the dragon will cause global warming until the 
whole of mankind burns for his sins.
Man was not made in the dragons image because when he made the dinosaurs
in his own image , they were good for 60 million years but then stayed from the
light so were exitinguished for their sins.
Beware mankind lest we follow the fate of the dinosaurs !!
Believe in the Dragon & that the dragon made the earth and heavens.
Sinners repent !!
Now, anyone one care to prove that my dragon doesn't exist and that he didn't 
create the universe ????
Answers on a post card ...
Sean Webb

In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, RHA (ricka@praline.no.neosoft.com) wrote:
>)In article <4ul6ug$6cp@skipper.netrail.net>, KAZ Vorpal  wrote:
>)>	They would find a big hole, like a cave system. They claim they 
>)>already know of one or two. And of course robots or automatons couldn't 
>)>really be trusted in such a foreign environ, completely cut off by the 
>)>rock from instruction...so humans would be necessary.
>)>
>)>	Too bad we have NASA as a government space monopoly, instead of 
>)>having had a free market in space as we've had in the Information 
>)>Revolution...we'd be to Mars already, had that been the case.
>)  Who told you you can't build a spaceship? As far as I know it's
>)  a free market. Build your ship, if you have problems getting
>)  approvals for launch, hire a good lawyer. Please don't let the 
>)  matter of a couple of billions of dollars come between your dream
>)  and reality.
>)  If you refuse to build that dreamship, then you're just the typical
>)  liberloonarian, full of bluster and hot air

	As far as /you/ know, there is a free market, because you haven't 
the slightest understanding of economics.
	First, even if there were no regulation of private aerospace 
activities, it would still not be a free market. There is a concept 
beyond the view of most people called mandated competition. As long as 
the government steals money from the poor to pay for their space 
projects, they function as competitors against a private sector who must 
actually /earn/ the money. The government, not having to earn it, is able 
to pay more for less and return inferior results. This makes private 
"competition" nearly impossible, the prices become insanely inflated.
	Second, there is of course enormous regulation of the industry, 
and of every industry linked to it. Economic ignoramuses don't realize, 
of course, but regulation is the creator of stagnation and monopoly. 
--
Words of the Sentient:
Judges, as a class, display, in the matter of arranging alimony, that reckless
generosity which is found only in men who are giving away someone else's cash.
                        --P. G. Wodehouse
        mailto:kaz@upx.net | http://www.kaz.org | telnet://umb.upx.net:22
       See also #Polyamory, #Heinlein, and #Libertarian on the Undernet...