Question:

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My company makes stuff that is purchased by other companies.  Some distribute the stuff, others put my stuff into their stuff and sell it that way.  On occassion, we will provide incentives for the sales people at one of our accounts.  It’s usually an incentive for the top sales reps, for example.  Sometimes we let the company administer the incentive to their sales folks, where we issue a check to the company for the total incentive cost, and the individual sales reps receive the incentive in their paychecks.  Other times, I pay it directly to the individual sales reps. I recently administered an incentive, where we gave bank certificates directly to the sales reps at one of our customers.  My accounting manager said that this is against "accounting rules," as I am not able to provide a cash incentive directly to the employee of one of our accounts. I understand the IRS guidelines/statutes relating to cash and cash equivalent awards, and the need to provide a 1099 if the total awards for the year exceed "X" dollars for an individual.  What I don’t understand is this "accounting rule" my accounting manager is referring to.  They claim: 1.  I can’t give a cash incentive to someone that is not directly employed by my company.

Sure you can.  Car companies do it all the time. 2.  A sales person at one of our accounts is not providing my company with a "service," so I can’t pay them an individual incentive.

They sell your studd (albeit through their employer) 3.  I must pay the company, and let them administer the incentive to their sales reps.

That’s probably the preferable method, but I’ve seen it done the other way many more times. 4.  "If we get audited, I have to show that a service was performed".

The sales records? I’m no CPA, but this just doesn’t sound logical to me.  It sounds like a personal guideline, rather than a generally accepted accounting principal or rule….

As long as you have the proper documentation, and you follow your established guidelines (no having your entire golf partners "win" a free golf trip), then things should be OK. If you are talking about huge amounts, you may need to run things by your company attorney to be sure you are following all the legal rules (if any apply). — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens, Georgia taxman at negia.net

Response:

Greetings, My company makes stuff that is purchased by other companies.  Some distribute the stuff, others put my stuff into their stuff and sell it that way.  On occassion, we will provide incentives for the sales people at one of our accounts.  It’s usually an incentive for the top sales reps, for example.  Sometimes we let the company administer the incentive to their sales folks, where we issue a check to the company for the total incentive cost, and the individual sales reps receive the incentive in their paychecks.  Other times, I pay it directly to the individual sales reps.   I recently administered an incentive, where we gave bank certificates directly to the sales reps at one of our customers.  My accounting manager said that this is against "accounting rules," as I am not able to provide a cash incentive directly to the employee of one of our accounts. I understand the IRS guidelines/statutes relating to cash and cash equivalent awards, and the need to provide a 1099 if the total awards for the year exceed "X" dollars for an individual.  What I don’t understand is this "accounting rule" my accounting manager is referring to.  They claim: 1.  I can’t give a cash incentive to someone that is not directly employed by my company. 2.  A sales person at one of our accounts is not providing my company with a "service," so I can’t pay them an individual incentive. 3.  I must pay the company, and let them administer the incentive to their sales reps. 4.  "If we get audited, I have to show that a service was performed". I’m no CPA, but this just doesn’t sound logical to me.  It sounds like a personal guideline, rather than a generally accepted accounting principal or rule….

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings, My company makes stuff that is purchased by other companies.  Some distribute the stuff, others put my stuff into their stuff and sell it that way.  On occassion, we will provide incentives for the sales people at one of our accounts.  It’s usually an incentive for the top sales reps, for example.  Sometimes we let the company administer the incentive to their sales folks, where we issue a check to the company for the total incentive cost, and the individual sales reps receive the incentive in their paychecks.  Other times, I pay it directly to the individual sales reps. I recently administered an incentive, where we gave bank certificates directly to the sales reps at one of our customers.  My accounting manager said that this is against "accounting rules," as I am not able to provide a cash incentive directly to the employee of one of our accounts. I understand the IRS guidelines/statutes relating to cash and cash equivalent awards, and the need to provide a 1099 if the total awards for the year exceed "X" dollars for an individual.  What I don’t understand is this "accounting rule" my accounting manager is referring to.  They claim: 1.  I can’t give a cash incentive to someone that is not directly employed by my company. 2.  A sales person at one of our accounts is not providing my company with a "service," so I can’t pay them an individual incentive. 3.  I must pay the company, and let them administer the incentive to their sales reps. 4.  "If we get audited, I have to show that a service was performed". I’m no CPA, but this just doesn’t sound logical to me.  It sounds like a personal guideline, rather than a generally accepted accounting principal or rule….

you could ask to see a copy of the applicable accounting rule but I don’t think you will get one.  Payments to a distributor’s salesperson or agent is actually common in some industries and this is expensed as marketing commissions or fees.  It is true if the payments total more than ($600?) a 1099 has to be issued.  There are also guidelines for good internal accounting controls such as the plan should be written and approved by the board, payments approved, etc.

Response:

Question:

"Michael" <muirh…@island.net> wrote in message

news:bllfb402pk3@enews2.newsguy.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In <news:h_pfb.29257$mg.24419@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, > Asghar Akbari said: > > Cronies Reap Iraqi Contracts > > By Paul Krugman > > International Herald Tribune > > October 1, 2003 > …<snip>… > > It’s rarely > > mentioned nowadays, but at the time of the Marshall Plan, Americans > > were very concerned about profiteering. To get congressional > > approval, Truman had to provide assurances that the plan would not > > become a boondoggle. Funds were administered by an agency independent > > of the White House, and Marshall promised that priorities would be > > determined by Europeans, not Americans. > Not just priorities, but contractors: under the Marshall Plan, European > nations and their corporate citizens were invited to come to the US and > *shop* for the goods and services they required, choosing organizations with > whom they already had trusting relationships or about whom they’d been > offered good references by other nations whose word they trusted. > None of this is allowed for – or even being contemplated – under the current > "plan". > ((U)) >   M

What Krugman is conveniently leaving out is that the principal competitors to most of these large US-based companies are the Bin Laden Construction Group and Schlumberger (a French engineering conglomerate).  Even if you were Al Gore, would you give the heavy contracting jobs to BLCG and/or Schlumberger? CW – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

"Michael" <muirh…@island.net> wrote in message

news:bln33v017aj@enews4.newsguy.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In <news:SuDfb.35964$E95.13384545@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, > CW said: > > "Michael" <muirh…@island.net> wrote in message > > news:bllfb402pk3@enews2.newsguy.com… > >> In <news:h_pfb.29257$mg.24419@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, > >> Asghar Akbari said: > >>> Cronies Reap Iraqi Contracts > >>> By Paul Krugman > >>> International Herald Tribune > >>> October 1, 2003 > >> …<snip>… > >>> It’s rarely > >>> mentioned nowadays, but at the time of the Marshall Plan, Americans > >>> were very concerned about profiteering. To get congressional > >>> approval, Truman had to provide assurances that the plan would not > >>> become a boondoggle. Funds were administered by an agency > >>> independent of the White House, and Marshall promised that > >>> priorities would be determined by Europeans, not Americans. > >> Not just priorities, but contractors: under the Marshall Plan, > >> European nations and their corporate citizens were invited to come > >> to the US and *shop* for the goods and services they required, > >> choosing organizations with whom they already had trusting > >> relationships or about whom they’d been offered good references by > >> other nations whose word they trusted. > >> None of this is allowed for – or even being contemplated – under the > >> current "plan". > >> ((U)) > >>   M > > What Krugman is conveniently leaving out is that the principal > > competitors to most of these large US-based companies are the Bin > > Laden Construction Group and Schlumberger (a French engineering > > conglomerate).  Even if you were Al Gore, would you give the heavy > > contracting jobs to BLCG and/or Schlumberger? > > CW > I’m not sure what I’d do, Chuck… though I think if some Iraqi town needed > major infrastructure work, I’d at least allow them to ask Schlumberger (much > as I personally have my suspicions about their integrity, they’re no worse > than Bechtel or Halliburton in this regard,) bid on calls for sealed > tenders, and allow them to judge for themselves whether any such bid meets > their needs and can be fulfilled on-budget and on time.    BLCG would be out > of the running, I think, because it hasn’t shown satisfactory distance from > one of America’s enemies, and the US is, after all, an occuping power and > not just a helpmate there. > The original Marshall Plan wasn’t exactly an altruistic deal, though it was > immeasurably helpful to Europe at great expense to Americans.  It provided > an enormous number of US and foreign jobs, and it hugely enriched a number > of US companies of varying size and description… but it did so mostly on > the US taxpayer’s dime.  Despite how much of it eventually was repaid, > individual American citizens paid for it more than anyone else. > Because of the domestic political implications of that, a great many > safeguards were built into the system that eventually was worked out (it > took *years* just to sort out how to implement it: it didn’t really come to > fruition until 1948, and the wheels were already in motion long before the > end of WWII,) in order to assure taxpayers’ wallets were not treated as a > partisan slush fund, and in order to give the European beneficiaries a great > measure of control over and latitude in decision making. > What’s happening this time is entirely different.   At least according to > public statement, Iraq will pay for every bit of this itself eventually, > almost entirely out of oil revenues. > A lot of the decision-making and contracting appears on the surface to be ad > hoc, arbitrary and partisan… I have no doubt, however, that much of what > seems ad hoc has been the subject of quiet "negotiation" for well over a > decade. > Anyhow, as I said, I don’t know how I’d handle it if it were my charge > somehow.  One thing for sure: I wouldn’t be granting no-bid contracts to > anyone, and especially not without exhaustive consultation with all levels > of Iraqi civil administration. > ((U)) >   M

Just a history note: The Marshall Plan was entirely a US taxpayer funded program for Europe.  It was aid and loan guarantees, not loans.  Nothing was repaid as it did not have to be repaid.  Winston Churchill called it "the most unselfish act in the history of nations."  It tallied up to hundreds of billions of 1947-1955 dollars.  Today, that amount would be well into the US$ trillions. Right now, there are Iraqi companies and Iraqis doing a lot of the infrastructure work, and far sooner than anyone thought that would occur. Therefore, the big boondoggle that Krugman, Akbari and others envision probably won’t reach the dimensions in their imaginations. CW

Response:

In <news:SuDfb.35964$E95.13384545@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, CW said: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Michael" <muirh…@island.net> wrote in message > news:bllfb402pk3@enews2.newsguy.com… >> In <news:h_pfb.29257$mg.24419@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, >> Asghar Akbari said: >>> Cronies Reap Iraqi Contracts >>> By Paul Krugman >>> International Herald Tribune >>> October 1, 2003 >> …<snip>… >>> It’s rarely >>> mentioned nowadays, but at the time of the Marshall Plan, Americans >>> were very concerned about profiteering. To get congressional >>> approval, Truman had to provide assurances that the plan would not >>> become a boondoggle. Funds were administered by an agency >>> independent of the White House, and Marshall promised that >>> priorities would be determined by Europeans, not Americans. >> Not just priorities, but contractors: under the Marshall Plan, >> European nations and their corporate citizens were invited to come >> to the US and *shop* for the goods and services they required, >> choosing organizations with whom they already had trusting >> relationships or about whom they’d been offered good references by >> other nations whose word they trusted. >> None of this is allowed for – or even being contemplated – under the >> current "plan". >> ((U)) >>   M > What Krugman is conveniently leaving out is that the principal > competitors to most of these large US-based companies are the Bin > Laden Construction Group and Schlumberger (a French engineering > conglomerate).  Even if you were Al Gore, would you give the heavy > contracting jobs to BLCG and/or Schlumberger? > CW

I’m not sure what I’d do, Chuck… though I think if some Iraqi town needed major infrastructure work, I’d at least allow them to ask Schlumberger (much as I personally have my suspicions about their integrity, they’re no worse than Bechtel or Halliburton in this regard,) bid on calls for sealed tenders, and allow them to judge for themselves whether any such bid meets their needs and can be fulfilled on-budget and on time.    BLCG would be out of the running, I think, because it hasn’t shown satisfactory distance from one of America’s enemies, and the US is, after all, an occuping power and not just a helpmate there. The original Marshall Plan wasn’t exactly an altruistic deal, though it was immeasurably helpful to Europe at great expense to Americans.  It provided an enormous number of US and foreign jobs, and it hugely enriched a number of US companies of varying size and description… but it did so mostly on the US taxpayer’s dime.  Despite how much of it eventually was repaid, individual American citizens paid for it more than anyone else. Because of the domestic political implications of that, a great many safeguards were built into the system that eventually was worked out (it took *years* just to sort out how to implement it: it didn’t really come to fruition until 1948, and the wheels were already in motion long before the end of WWII,) in order to assure taxpayers’ wallets were not treated as a partisan slush fund, and in order to give the European beneficiaries a great measure of control over and latitude in decision making. What’s happening this time is entirely different.   At least according to public statement, Iraq will pay for every bit of this itself eventually, almost entirely out of oil revenues. A lot of the decision-making and contracting appears on the surface to be ad hoc, arbitrary and partisan… I have no doubt, however, that much of what seems ad hoc has been the subject of quiet "negotiation" for well over a decade. Anyhow, as I said, I don’t know how I’d handle it if it were my charge somehow.  One thing for sure: I wouldn’t be granting no-bid contracts to anyone, and especially not without exhaustive consultation with all levels of Iraqi civil administration. ((U))   M

Response:

In <news:h_pfb.29257$mg.24419@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, Asghar Akbari said: > Cronies Reap Iraqi Contracts > By Paul Krugman > International Herald Tribune > October 1, 2003 …<snip>… > It’s rarely > mentioned nowadays, but at the time of the Marshall Plan, Americans > were very concerned about profiteering. To get congressional > approval, Truman had to provide assurances that the plan would not > become a boondoggle. Funds were administered by an agency independent > of the White House, and Marshall promised that priorities would be > determined by Europeans, not Americans.

Not just priorities, but contractors: under the Marshall Plan, European nations and their corporate citizens were invited to come to the US and *shop* for the goods and services they required, choosing organizations with whom they already had trusting relationships or about whom they’d been offered good references by other nations whose word they trusted. None of this is allowed for – or even being contemplated – under the current "plan". ((U))   M

Response:

Cronies Reap Iraqi Contracts By Paul Krugman International Herald Tribune October 1, 2003   It’s official: The administration that once scorned nation-building now says that it’s engaged in a modern version of the Marshall Plan. But Iraq isn’t postwar Europe, and George W. Bush definitely isn’t Harry Truman. Indeed, while Truman led the United States in what Churchill called the "most unsordid act in history," the stories about Iraqi reconstruction keep getting more sordid. And the sordidness isn’t, as some would have you believe, a minor blemish on an otherwise noble enterprise. Cronyism is an important factor in the Iraqi debacle. It’s not just that reconstruction is much more expensive than it should be. The really important thing is that cronyism is warping policy: By treating contracts as prizes to be handed to their friends, administration officials are delaying Iraq’s recovery, with potentially catastrophic consequences. It’s rarely mentioned nowadays, but at the time of the Marshall Plan, Americans were very concerned about profiteering. To get congressional approval, Truman had to provide assurances that the plan would not become a boondoggle. Funds were administered by an agency independent of the White House, and Marshall promised that priorities would be determined by Europeans, not Americans.   Fortunately, Truman’s assurances were credible. Although he is now honored for his postwar leadership, Truman initially rose to prominence as a fierce crusader against war profiteering, which he considered treason. Iraq’s reconstruction, by contrast, remains firmly under White House control. And this is an administration of, by and for crony capitalists; to match this White House’s blithe lack of concern about conflicts of interest, you have to go back to the Harding administration. That giant, no-bid contract given to Halliburton, the company that made Dick Cheney rich, was just what you’d expect.   And even as the situation in Iraq slides downhill, and the Iraqi Governing Council demands more autonomy and control, U.S. officials continue to block local initiatives, and are still trying to keep the big contracts in the hands of you-know-who.   For example, in July two enterprising Middle Eastern firms started offering cellphone service in Baghdad, setting up jury-rigged systems compatible with those of neighboring countries. Since the collapse of Baghdad’s phone system has been a major source of postwar problems, coalition authorities should have been pleased. But no: The authorities promptly shut down the services. Cell service, they said, could be offered only by the winners in a bidding process – one whose rules, revealed on July 31, seemed carefully designed to shut out any non-U.S. companies. (In the face of strenuous protests the rules were revised, but still seem to favor the usual suspects.) Oddly, the announcement of the winners, originally scheduled for Sept. 5, keeps being delayed. Meanwhile, only Paul Bremer and his people have cellphones – and, thanks to the baffling decision to give that contract to MCI, even those phones don’t work very well. (Aside from the fact that its management perpetrated history’s biggest accounting fraud, MCI has no experience in building cell networks.)   Then there’s electricity. One reason Iraq still faces blackouts is that local experts and institutions were excluded from the repair business. Instead, the exclusive contract was given to Bechtel, whose Republican ties are almost as strong as Halliburton’s. And if a recent story in The Washington Post is accurate, Bechtel continues to ignore pleas by Iraqi engineers for essential spare parts.   Meanwhile, several companies with close personal ties to top administration officials have begun brazenly offering their services as facilitators for companies seeking Iraqi business. The former law firm of Douglas Feith, the Pentagon undersecretary who oversees Iraqi reconstruction, has hung out its shingle. So has another company headed by Joe Allbaugh, who ran the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000 and ran FEMA until a few months ago. And a third entrant is run by Ahmad Chalabi’s nephew.   There’s a moral here: optimists who expect the administration to get its Iraq policy on track are kidding themselves. Think about it: The cost of the occupation is exploding, and military experts warn that our army is dangerously overcommitted. Yet officials are still allowing Iraqi reconstruction to languish, and the disaffection of the Iraqi public to grow, while they steer choice contracts to their friends. What makes you think they will ever change their ways? — Asghar Akbari " Quaecomque Sunt Vera"

Response:

Question:

What is the least expensive way to meet the CPE requirements (40 hours per year for NC)?  Internet courses, self-study, live classes, etc. There are so many choices these days.  Anybody here have some specific ideas – in other words, specific providers?

Response:

What is the least expensive way to meet the CPE requirements (40 hours per year for NC)?  Internet courses, self-study, live classes, etc.  There are so many choices these days.  Anybody here have some specific ideas – in other words, specific providers?

The bottom line cost doesn’t measure the true value of the CPE.  And that’s what you should look for.  "Can I use this information to increase my bottom line?"  That’s what you should be asking with every course you consider. Aside from that, how you learn best is the type of CPE you should take.  Me? I hate self-study courses so I don’t even take free self-study courses. Live CPE works best for me.  I feel I gain value from the interaction of other professionals not allowed in self-study courses. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens,  Georgia http://www.pat-cpa.com

Response:

What is the least expensive way to meet the CPE requirements (40 hours per year for NC)? Internet courses, self-study, live classes, etc. There are so many choices these days. Anybody here have some specific ideas – in other words, specific providers?

Not sure if the same applies to CPE for CPAs, but teaching and lecturing on accounting, audit and related subject counts as CPE for CMAs. One really has to know and review the knowledge well to teach it and, in addition, the cash flow has a positive sign. A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. PGP key fingerprint=F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": munitions Ortega Clinton jihad Semtex strategic colonel cryptographic

Response:

The bottom line cost doesn’t measure the true value of the CPE.  And that’s what you should look for.  "Can I use this information to increase my bottom line?"  That’s what you should be asking with every course you consider. Aside from that, how you learn best is the type of CPE you should take.

AMEN, brother!! Also check your state society.  Many have CPE conferences at really cheap rates.

Response:

The bottom line cost doesn’t measure the true value of the CPE.  And that’s what you should look for.  "Can I use this information to increase my bottom line?"  That’s what you should be asking with every course you consider. Aside from that, how you learn best is the type of CPE you should take. AMEN, brother!! Also check your state society.  Many have CPE conferences at really cheap rates.

Yes, the Florida ICPA actually sends out a catalogue (200 pages this year) of all their CPE offerings for the year. — Todd Stephens

Response:

I’m sure it varies from state to state, but here in Texas, you can earn CPE credits for learning accomplished from sources other than just pre-approved sources.   Example, I took an Outlook Database seminar, it was not officially CPE approved, however the state board did approve the hours.  In Texas, one need can apply to the board in advance to see if they will approve or disapprove the hours. This is outstanding from two standpoints.  First, many of these seminars are far cheaper than typical CPE offerings.  Second, the array of topics expands tremendously.  After a few decades of CPE, the standard offerings get less and less interesting.  Keep in mind, that self-study can work also.  For instance I bought a microsoft press book (forget the topic right now) and it even had suggested study times.  It was a topic I was interested in, I got something like 12 hours, and the book (with CD) cost less than $30. Hope this helps some.

–What is the least expensive way to meet the CPE requirements (40 hours per –year for NC)?  Internet courses, self-study, live classes, etc. –There are so many choices these days.  Anybody here have some specific –ideas – in other words, specific providers? —

Response:

Also check your state society.  Many have CPE conferences at really cheap rates. Yes, the Florida ICPA actually sends out a catalogue (200 pages this year) of all their CPE offerings for the year.

I only found a few CPE seminars that kept me awake and taught me much. $10 – $20 an hour is expensive compared to:    http://www.ppcuniversity.com/CourseCatalog.cfm – 50+ good onliine          courrses (130+ CPA hours) for $99 / year.    http://www.gleim.com/ – books with around 40 hours for $125.          Retests are $15.    Mike Block, QuickBooks Tax Cut CPA, 954-566-7540 Lowest QB Prices   http://blocktax.com/lowest_QuickBooks_prices.htm Free 462p QB Book  http://blocktax.com/free-quickbooks-book.htm Error Codes/Fixes  http://blocktax.com/quickbooks-errors.htm Shortcuts Download http://blocktax.com/quickbooks_shortcuts.htm 200 QB Add-ons http://blocktax.com/quickbooks-addons/quickbooks-add-ons.htm

Response:

What is the least expensive way to meet the CPE requirements (40 hours per year for NC)?  Internet courses, self-study, live classes, etc. There are so many choices these days.  Anybody here have some specific ideas – in other words, specific providers?

If your only criteria is cost, the AICPA has a service called Infobytes (I used it last year to bone up on a few areas, and I assume it’s still available.)  The cost was $99 for 1 year of access to on-line CPE.  There are a variety of self study courses available – most of the ones I looked at were basic.  There is well in excess of 40 hours. The frustrating part of this service was that, for me, it didn’t work very well from a technical (hardware/software technical, not content technical) viewpoint.

Response:

I only found a few CPE seminars that kept me awake and taught me much. $10 – $20 an hour is expensive compared to:    http://www.ppcuniversity.com/CourseCatalog.cfm – 50+ good onliine          courrses (130+ CPA hours) for $99 / year.    http://www.gleim.com/ – books with around 40 hours for $125.          Retests are $15.

I agree that the fees are exorbitant for some of these courses, but I can rarely get the motivation for any self-study courses.  I did notice in the back of the FICPA catalogue that many, if not most, of their seminars are also offered as self-study modules with books and/or CDROM for about 1/2 the price of the seminar itself. — Todd Stephens

Response:

Question:

The Right Reverend Horatio P. Snorklebottom If you are not into computers, you might as well skip this…

<<<<<<<<<<<<< knipperdeknip Grrrrrrr…..I try to never lose my temper, but this is it…. Me: "Who in MY COMPANY authorized that??!!""

Ahhh, time for a suitable change management process. If people from multiple locations start pulling the same rope it is the only way to survive, I think. How many people think that someones contract is getting terminated very  soon??

Nah, you have to create real disasters for that…. maarten

Response:

Hey… at least you didnt find port mapping softare running on a DOD network…….  8-( – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you are not into computers, you might as well skip this… My day today…my day job is as Network Administrator for a Accounting/Personal Management firm on Music Row.  I won’t name names but you have heard of many of our clients. We recently merged with another, similar company in LA, and have our eye on another one in New York.  So,  part of my job is maintaining connectivity between two very different networks (Us Microsoft 2000, them Novell 5) via a encrypted VPN link and making sure that everyone in both locations can access data anywhere. In order to do this, I use a link to a Win2K workstation I have set up in LA across the VPN with PCAnywhere and a FTP server  (also the print server for the LA LAN).  I can then administrate the Novell Directory with PCAnywhere in the remote LAN, and use the FTP server to provide file transfer….I have another FTP server on my end. Our LA office uses a computer  firm under contract because they don’t have an in house IT staff like we do (actually, the users out there are pretty much without clue)… The contractors were by yesterday for some workstation stuff that isn’t practical to do remotely from Nashville. So, this morning, the Big Boss comes in screaming he cannot get these Royalty Audit files.  I try the FTP server, and it is not responding…. which never happens.  So I grab the PC Anywhere link….which does not respond…. I start checking the network, and the address that WAS my FTP server/PC anywhere  portal now seems to be a users computer….grrr….. OK, so someone reset my addresses…  I call out to LA, get a hold of a user and walk them through the ultra complex task of running "IPCONFIG" on the print server (this only takes about an hour).  Yep, the address has been changed….but the new address will not answer on PCAnywhere either…. I get on the phone and call the contractor…get a machine…leave a message…. Then I try to connect to the FTP server that should be on that port…no connection…. Deciding the user must have checked the wrong computer, I set up a port scan and start looking for computers listening on the PC anywhere ports…hey, there are only 253 addresses it can be…. No answer. I call out to the contractor again…same machine…"Leave a message and I will return your call immediately"…. I scan the network for FTP servers…. nothing… third call, 3 hours and four phone calls later, I get the contractor to answer his phone…"Yeah, I  changed the DHCP scopes and the address of the print server to …" Me: "Yeah, I got that far…is PC Anywhere stopped for some reason?" Them:  "No, we changed the port numbers to xxxx" Very nonstandard port numbers (and I have configured PCAnywhere to only answer calls over the local, nonroutable LAN..no WAN access at all). Refraining from the obvious question "just why the f**k would you do that?"  I reconfigure PCAnywhere….tunnel in…and find the FTP server isn’t just stopped, it is uninstalled…. Grrrrrrr…..I try to never lose my temper, but this is it…. Me: "Who in MY COMPANY authorized that??!!"" Them:  "Er, well, no one…So and so (one of the senior folks at the contractors office) said it would improve lan security" This from the hired help…without authorization or correct documentation…. How many people think that someones contract is getting terminated very  soon??

Response:

If you are not into computers, you might as well skip this…

The frightening thing is, I understood that. My sympathies. I run a 2 computer lan at home. Sometimes I think it’s one too many…. Rob

Response:

I know, when you start understanding stuff like this…it scares you… My bro’s an ansolute NUT. He’s set up a 5 computer LAN with a HUB, linux internet server for our cable modem and a file server. two of the computers use Linux, one uses Win2k and 2 use win98…and he gives all the computers animal names. The internet server is called "monkey", the file server is called "albatross", his computer is called "tiger" the laptop connected to the stereo is called "chicken" and the main PC is called "Hippo"…mine’s called "kristoff’s computer" i’m pathetic i know… — The Man: Kristoff Lajoie – www.kristoff.4t.com The Band: Audio Out      - www.audioout.live.com.au "Dude…you just snapped my G string, stop pulling it so tight."

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you are not into computers, you might as well skip this… The frightening thing is, I understood that. My sympathies. I run a 2 computer lan at home. Sometimes I think it’s one too many…. Rob

Response:

If you are not into computers, you might as well skip this…

Ouch! Bar stewards! As an ex Novell sysadmin/NT webbie, this is where I would be shouting, "quality control, working procedures, RFCs".  When setting up new PCs on the LAN, the other sysadmins I worked with would just pull IP addresses out of the air because ‘they thought it was available’. If it worked, they would leave it assuming that it was free – not even thinking that the user it was assigned to may be on holiday/lunch/whatever. Didn’t take me long to get Novell Managewise installed to manage this stuff – shame the other sysadmins didn’t use it. I soon left! Keep smiling, Lynrd – through gritted teeth will work too — Linny

Response:

That was juicy.  Keep us posted. — Bud LeCompte http://budlecompte.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you are not into computers, you might as well skip this… My day today…my day job is as Network Administrator for a Accounting/Personal Management firm on Music Row.  I won’t name names but you have heard of many of our clients. We recently merged with another, similar company in LA, and have our eye on another one in New York.  So,  part of my job is maintaining connectivity between two very different networks (Us Microsoft 2000, them Novell 5) via a encrypted VPN link and making sure that everyone in both locations can access data anywhere. In order to do this, I use a link to a Win2K workstation I have set up in LA across the VPN with PCAnywhere and a FTP server  (also the print server for the LA LAN).  I can then administrate the Novell Directory with PCAnywhere in the remote LAN, and use the FTP server to provide file transfer….I have another FTP server on my end. Our LA office uses a computer  firm under contract because they don’t have an in house IT staff like we do (actually, the users out there are pretty much without clue)… The contractors were by yesterday for some workstation stuff that isn’t practical to do remotely from Nashville. So, this morning, the Big Boss comes in screaming he cannot get these Royalty Audit files.  I try the FTP server, and it is not responding…. which never happens.  So I grab the PC Anywhere link….which does not respond…. I start checking the network, and the address that WAS my FTP server/PC anywhere  portal now seems to be a users computer….grrr….. OK, so someone reset my addresses…  I call out to LA, get a hold of a user and walk them through the ultra complex task of running "IPCONFIG" on the print server (this only takes about an hour).  Yep, the address has been changed….but the new address will not answer on PCAnywhere either…. I get on the phone and call the contractor…get a machine…leave a message…. Then I try to connect to the FTP server that should be on that port…no connection…. Deciding the user must have checked the wrong computer, I set up a port scan and start looking for computers listening on the PC anywhere ports…hey, there are only 253 addresses it can be…. No answer. I call out to the contractor again…same machine…"Leave a message and I will return your call immediately"…. I scan the network for FTP servers…. nothing… third call, 3 hours and four phone calls later, I get the contractor to answer his phone…"Yeah, I  changed the DHCP scopes and the address of the print server to …" Me: "Yeah, I got that far…is PC Anywhere stopped for some reason?" Them:  "No, we changed the port numbers to xxxx" Very nonstandard port numbers (and I have configured PCAnywhere to only answer calls over the local, nonroutable LAN..no WAN access at all). Refraining from the obvious question "just why the f**k would you do that?"  I reconfigure PCAnywhere….tunnel in…and find the FTP server isn’t just stopped, it is uninstalled…. Grrrrrrr…..I try to never lose my temper, but this is it…. Me: "Who in MY COMPANY authorized that??!!"" Them:  "Er, well, no one…So and so (one of the senior folks at the contractors office) said it would improve lan security" This from the hired help…without authorization or correct documentation…. How many people think that someones contract is getting terminated very  soon??

Response:

Question:

I’ve seen so many instances of that I could write a book.  But then, I look for it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But auditors scored average or below for having "expertise in my industry," for maintaining "a staff we can rely on to provide the right advice," and for having "staff that are responsive to my needs." Also scoring low marks were auditors’ "capability to provide expert advice and insights on business risks associated with accounting treatments" and "competence in recommending the right level of financial controls," as well as having staff that is "competent in understanding complex financial structures used by some businesses."  But my thought is; What is the problem? Alleged fundamental incompetence. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com

Response:

But auditors scored average or below for having "expertise in my industry," for maintaining "a staff we can rely on to provide the right advice," and for having "staff that are responsive to my needs." Also scoring low marks were auditors’ "capability to provide expert advice and insights on business risks associated with accounting treatments" and "competence in recommending the right level of financial controls," as well as having staff that is "competent in understanding complex financial structures used by some businesses."  But my thought is; What is the problem?

Alleged fundamental incompetence. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

A I understand this, I take it the Corps are down hiring below the practitioners these days.  The other part of what they are saying, as I interpret it, is that the Corps has in place Controllers who are not competent to determine and implement an adequate level of internal controls.   Then the questions is, can this problem be fixed?  But my thought is; What is the problem? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For Competence, Accounting Gets a ‘D’ in Poll of Businesses By JANET WHITMAN DOW JONES NEWSWIRES NEW YORK — Businesses give the accounting profession a "D" grade, a new survey shows. But, even with the Enron Corp. mess, it isn’t accountants’ integrity that scores such low marks. Instead, the real cause for concern is a lack of competence, which is eroding customer satisfaction, according to the poll conducted by NFO WorldGroup, a New York financial-services-marketing firm. <snip But auditors scored average or below for having "expertise in my industry," for maintaining "a staff we can rely on to provide the right advice," and for having "staff that are responsive to my needs." Also scoring low marks were auditors’ "capability to provide expert advice and insights on business risks associated with accounting treatments" and "competence in recommending the right level of financial controls," as well as having staff that is "competent in understanding complex financial structures used by some businesses." http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1018393895577052760,00.html?mod=sp… This could be a worse problem than the scandals. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com

Response:

For Competence, Accounting Gets a ‘D’ in Poll of Businesses By JANET WHITMAN DOW JONES NEWSWIRES NEW YORK — Businesses give the accounting profession a "D" grade, a new survey shows. But, even with the Enron Corp. mess, it isn’t accountants’ integrity that scores such low marks. Instead, the real cause for concern is a lack of competence, which is eroding customer satisfaction, according to the poll conducted by NFO WorldGroup, a New York financial-services-marketing firm. <snip But auditors scored average or below for having "expertise in my industry," for maintaining "a staff we can rely on to provide the right advice," and for having "staff that are responsive to my needs." Also scoring low marks were auditors’ "capability to provide expert advice and insights on business risks associated with accounting treatments" and "competence in recommending the right level of financial controls," as well as having staff that is "competent in understanding complex financial structures used by some businesses." http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1018393895577052760,00.html?mod=sp… This could be a worse problem than the scandals. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Question:

Again, you’re not reading for content. I doubt if you’re even reading most of the words — I did not so much as imply that [not(believing in X] is equivalent to [believing in(notX)]. I only stated that [not(believing in X)] is the same as [believing not(in X)]. Why are you having so much trouble with this concept? It’s not very difficult to understand. Both describe what the person does NOT believe, and says nothing about what they do believe. I understand completely the difference between not sharing a person’s belief, and believing in the subset. But what I’m talking about here is that the theist believes in the supernatural, e.g., something higher than nature. The atheist is simply a person who isn’t a theist. Therefor, the atheist does not believe in anything higher than nature. Conscious decision or not. Likewise, the Pagan "theist" does not believe in anything higher than nature – but for different reasons. To most pagans, "supernatural" is a contradiction in terms, as it would be for the atheist. If you’re really that paranoid that you might have something in common with a group of "theists" (Pagans) you can just say so. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Where in the HELL do you think you can get off accusing me of making a straw-man of atheism? In both reading comprehension and argumentative writing I could run circles around anyone in my college and was top of my class. That surprises me, coming from somebody who thinks that [not(believing in X)] is equivalent to [believing in(not X)]. The former is passive,  not performing any action. The latter is actively performing the action of believing in (not X). If you mean the former why not say it instead of confusing things by saying the latter? I’m not having trouble understanding anything. "The belief that there is nothing higher than nature" is NOT a positive position. It describes what a person does NOT believe in, or what that person believes NOT in, however you say it, it’s the same meaning. No. They are NOT the same meaning. The former is only one of the possible interpretations for the latter. I’ve given you others.                                                            You say, "You’re wrong, atheism is simply a lack of belief in something higher than nature." – you say I’m wrong and correct me by restating what I said in slightly different terms, claiming it has opposite meaning. If you knew how to read for comprehension, you would know that. No. The two have different meanings. Do you understand the difference between not sharing somebody else’s religious belief, and believing in its negation? Or that the latter is a subset of the former? And that the former is all it takes to be atheist, not the latter? If you knew how to write for comprehension by the reader you would realise they were not equivalent. And if you knew how to read for comprehension you would know that I never said it was the opposite, but that it was incorrect because it was a subset. Do you know what the word "subset" means? Go back to school, learn some basic reading skills and come back when you know how to read for *content* rather than arguing over semantics like some kind of egotistical high-school kid. _You_ need to learn to read, and then to read up on the difference between "not believing in anything higher than nature", and "believing there is nothing higher than nature". And then to write what you mean. I can’t believe I’ve had to explain this to you so many times. By turning "not believing in any god or god" into "the belief that natural forces are all there is", you are turning an inaction into an action. Which action isn’t performed by most atheists for the various reasons I’ve already given you. The semantics ARE the meaning. I’m not a mind reader so your written words are all I have to go on. Do you understand the difference between action and inaction? Or that most atheists don’t have the active belief you assign to them AND that they’re not agnostic?

Response:

Where in the HELL do you think you can get off accusing me of making a straw-man of atheism? In both reading comprehension and argumentative writing I could run circles around anyone in my college and was top of my class.

That surprises me, coming from somebody who thinks that [not(believing in X)] is equivalent to [believing in(not X)]. The former is passive,  not performing any action. The latter is actively performing the action of believing in (not X). If you mean the former why not say it instead of confusing things by saying the latter? I’m not having trouble understanding anything. "The belief that there is nothing higher than nature" is NOT a positive position. It describes what a person does NOT believe in, or what that person believes NOT in, however you say it, it’s the same meaning.

No. They are NOT the same meaning. The former is only one of the possible interpretations for the latter. I’ve given you others.                                                            You say, "You’re wrong, atheism is simply a lack of belief in something higher than nature." – you say I’m wrong and correct me by restating what I said in slightly different terms, claiming it has opposite meaning. If you knew how to read for comprehension, you would know that.

No. The two have different meanings. Do you understand the difference between not sharing somebody else’s religious belief, and believing in its negation? Or that the latter is a subset of the former? And that the former is all it takes to be atheist, not the latter? If you knew how to write for comprehension by the reader you would realise they were not equivalent. And if you knew how to read for comprehension you would know that I never said it was the opposite, but that it was incorrect because it was a subset. Do you know what the word "subset" means? Go back to school, learn some basic reading skills and come back when you know how to read for *content* rather than arguing over semantics like some kind of egotistical high-school kid.

_You_ need to learn to read, and then to read up on the difference between "not believing in anything higher than nature", and "believing there is nothing higher than nature". And then to write what you mean. I can’t believe I’ve had to explain this to you so many times. By turning "not believing in any god or god" into "the belief that natural forces are all there is", you are turning an inaction into an action. Which action isn’t performed by most atheists for the various reasons I’ve already given you. The semantics ARE the meaning. I’m not a mind reader so your written words are all I have to go on. Do you understand the difference between action and inaction? Or that most atheists don’t have the active belief you assign to them AND that they’re not agnostic?

Response:

Where in the HELL do you think you can get off accusing me of making a straw-man of atheism? In both reading comprehension and argumentative writing I could run circles around anyone in my college and was top of my class. I’m not having trouble understanding anything. "The belief that there is nothing higher than nature" is NOT a positive position. It describes what a person does NOT believe in, or what that person believes NOT in, however you say it, it’s the same meaning. You say, "You’re wrong, atheism is simply a lack of belief in something higher than nature." – you say I’m wrong and correct me by restating what I said in slightly different terms, claiming it has opposite meaning. If you knew how to read for comprehension, you would know that. Go back to school, learn some basic reading skills and come back when you know how to read for *content* rather than arguing over semantics like some kind of egotistical high-school kid. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I hope you realize by the time this thread is finished I’ll be going over every newsgroup post before I send it as if it were a bloody college research paper Of course. Perhaps a better term would be anti-theist. This is why I No, not that either. While we do react negatively to certain theists, this is ony because of the way they act towards those outside their religion. Nobody would bother with them if they could only live and let live. The problem is that certain denominations of Christianity are extremely intolerant, deny reality when it contradicts their beliefs and try to force others to believe as they do. As I keep trying to explain, atheism per se is a non-event. You’re nit-picking. I’m speaking of the atheists out there who are more than simple passive non-believers, but actually take the time to think of reasons why god isn’t necessary to believe in. It’s _not_ nit-picking. Very few atheists are "more than simple passive non-believers". To illustrate: do you "actually take the time to think of the reasons why Santa Claus isn’t necessary to believe in"? If you believe in it that’s a performed action. If you don’t it’s just one of the zillions of irrelevances you don’t believe in. You’re generalising from eg the recent ex-theist for whom it might still have some residual importance, to all atheists. But even for those it’s the "but there ain’t no Santa Claus" variety. Woody Allan put it into perspective perfectly when he said "Not only is there no God but you try getting a plumber on a Sunday". Far too many ignorant believers fondly imagine that atheism is an equivalent but opposite belief, driving force, centre of worldview etc, and accommodating them by adding things that aren’t actually part of atheism, confirms this in their mind. I’ll remind you that this started when you described atheism as something like "the belief that natural forces are all there is". Which is an un-necessary extension that doesn’t apply to most of us anyway. You’re still making the mistake of trying to tell people what a non-event is, rather than what it isn’t. A belief is an action performed. We don’t waste time performing that action for much the same reason you don’t think about Zeus when you’re having a shower. It would never occur to us to do that. Note that this doesn’t mean that the behaviour of those who believe in Santa Claus aren’t extremely relevant. But its their actions not their motivations. To you such a thing may seem ludicrous – but put yourself in the shoes of a Christer experiencing a major theological crisis and has concluded that the whole ‘god’ idea is bupkiss. Now this poor soul is still occasionally troubled with questions he doesn’t know the answer to. The only thing he can think of is ‘god-did-it’ but he knows there must be a simpler answer than that. That’s a stage some ex-theists have gone through. After a while it becomes simply "something they used to believe". Again I’ll remind you, you described atheism as "the belief that natural forces are all there is". You still haven’t answered the question: do you take time to perform this action? This is what I went through. It took a lot of work and mental discipline for me to be faced with an ‘unanswerable’ question and not have the ‘god-did-it’ excuse pop into my head as sheer reflex leftover from all the years of christian brainwashing. Deprogramming oneself is not an easy task, and it may even take years. For some, this becomes an integral part of being a skeptic/atheist – constantly thinking of all those things you used to believe and proving to yourself (among others) just how unnecessary those beliefs truly are. I’m a lifelong atheist because I wasn’t taught to be theist as a child. But even most ex-theist atheists don’t "constantly think of all those things they used to believe etc". They’ve got more important things to do – the things that describe what they are, not what they aren’t. In Woody Allan’s case it’s somebody wo needs a plumber. For most of us we’re not even aware we’re atheist most of the time unless somebody else brings up the subject of their theism. We do have issues as atheists though. How do you explain to a kid who’s told at school that the scouts welcome all kids, why he is refused admission because he doesn’t believe in somebody else’s deity (which is well known now athough the ads, flyers etc dishonestly don’t mention it)? Or George Bush senior’s remarks about atheists in his 1988 Presidential campaign? Apart from things like this most of our issues are shared by the minority religions – enforcement of the majority religion, weddings, funarals etc, relationships with people having different beliefs etc. That’s what I mean by anti-theist; a person not satisfied with God not being proven, but has to go so far as to disprove that which has not yet been proven beyond even the greatest doubts. You’re still trying to interpret more into it than there actually is, and generalise that to all atheists. I tell believers to substiture Santa Claus in what they tell us to see what they sound like outside their religion. Instead of doing that they often get insulted by the analogy. But try to understand that for  the vast majority of atheists, that would be like not being satisfied with Santa Claus not being proven and going so far as to disprove that which has not yet been proven beyond event he greatest doubts. Most atheists would live and let live if only evangelists, fundamentalists, born-agains etc would leave them in peace. Then you learn that all the ‘anti-theism’ shit isn’t necessary anymore, because of Occam’s Razor – the simplest answer is usually the right one (assuming at least a great majority of variables are known). As I said that’s a phase that some atheists might have gone through. Most ex-theists just lost their belief in the same waythey lost their Santa Claus belief. stated in my previous post that this can become very semantic. It’s Because when you tell atheists what our position is you have to get it right. From our perspective. Your perspective is not necessarily that of all atheists’. Or perhaps So? All it takes to be atheist is not to be theist. Period. Anything over and above that is the individual atheist’s addition. It is a mistake to define atheism in terms of these additions as you did. Because atheism is NOT "the belief that natural forces are all there is". Beware of assuming that when somebody tells you what they’re not, that you can deduce what they _are_ by eliminating alternatives. That rarely works because people don’t know all of them ecause they see it from their own perspective not the other guy’s. many other atheist’s got my original point – a secular/atheistic approach to science (which is the proper way to conduct science anyway) will not yield results directly threatening to a nature-based religion because all it does is help us to learn about what kind of "power" (to put it in pagan terms) nature is truly capable of. For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution would not have been the least bit threatening to the pagans of his day – indeed, they would have thought it a goddess-send. I’ll remind you that you described it as the belief that natural forces are all there is. Whenever science detracts from the percieved traditional doctrines of religions that claim to relate to powers ‘above’ or ‘outside’ nature, it is doing so because it takes miracles out of the hands of their god(s) and puts them into nature. Therefore, a nature-based religion would have no problem accepting many things that other religious types have staged excecutions for. (you know who you are Roman-Catholics, with your God on a Stick!) That’s religion’s problem, not science’s. Science just describes the way things are. It says nothing about deities, supernatural etc. It just describes how things happen. Scientists who are religious believe they investigate the way their god did it. But they know better than including it in the explanations because it is un-necessary: the explanations are independant of deity. In mathematical terms the result is the same for all values of g. If an expanation depends on or even includes a specific value of g (even g=0 or g~=0) then g becomes subject to the same rules, tools, methods as the rest of it. In practical terms, it doesn’t even include a g variable let alone assign a value to it. Occam’s razor. People who

… read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I hope you realize by the time this thread is finished I’ll be going over every newsgroup post before I send it as if it were a bloody college research paper Of course. Perhaps a better term would be anti-theist. This is why I No, not that either. While we do react negatively to certain theists, this is ony because of the way they act towards those outside their religion. Nobody would bother with them if they could only live and let live. The problem is that certain denominations of Christianity are extremely intolerant, deny reality when it contradicts their beliefs and try to force others to believe as they do. As I keep trying to explain, atheism per se is a non-event. You’re nit-picking. I’m speaking of the atheists out there who are more than simple passive non-believers, but actually take the time to think of reasons why god isn’t necessary to believe in.

It’s _not_ nit-picking. Very few atheists are "more than simple passive non-believers". To illustrate: do you "actually take the time to think of the reasons why Santa Claus isn’t necessary to believe in"? If you believe in it that’s a performed action. If you don’t it’s just one of the zillions of irrelevances you don’t believe in. You’re generalising from eg the recent ex-theist for whom it might still have some residual importance, to all atheists. But even for those it’s the "but there ain’t no Santa Claus" variety. Woody Allan put it into perspective perfectly when he said "Not only is there no God but you try getting a plumber on a Sunday". Far too many ignorant believers fondly imagine that atheism is an equivalent but opposite belief, driving force, centre of worldview etc, and accommodating them by adding things that aren’t actually part of atheism, confirms this in their mind. I’ll remind you that this started when you described atheism as something like "the belief that natural forces are all there is". Which is an un-necessary extension that doesn’t apply to most of us anyway. You’re still making the mistake of trying to tell people what a non-event is, rather than what it isn’t. A belief is an action performed. We don’t waste time performing that action for much the same reason you don’t think about Zeus when you’re having a shower. It would never occur to us to do that. Note that this doesn’t mean that the behaviour of those who believe in Santa Claus aren’t extremely relevant. But its their actions not their motivations. To you such a thing may seem ludicrous – but put yourself in the shoes of a Christer experiencing a major theological crisis and has concluded that the whole ‘god’ idea is bupkiss. Now this poor soul is still occasionally troubled with questions he doesn’t know the answer to. The only thing he can think of is ‘god-did-it’ but he knows there must be a simpler answer than that.

That’s a stage some ex-theists have gone through. After a while it becomes simply "something they used to believe". Again I’ll remind you, you described atheism as "the belief that natural forces are all there is". You still haven’t answered the question: do you take time to perform this action? This is what I went through. It took a lot of work and mental discipline for me to be faced with an ‘unanswerable’ question and not have the ‘god-did-it’ excuse pop into my head as sheer reflex leftover from all the years of christian brainwashing. Deprogramming oneself is not an easy task, and it may even take years. For some, this becomes an integral part of being a skeptic/atheist – constantly thinking of all those things you used to believe and proving to yourself (among others) just how unnecessary those beliefs truly are.

I’m a lifelong atheist because I wasn’t taught to be theist as a child. But even most ex-theist atheists don’t "constantly think of all those things they used to believe etc". They’ve got more important things to do – the things that describe what they are, not what they aren’t. In Woody Allan’s case it’s somebody wo needs a plumber. For most of us we’re not even aware we’re atheist most of the time unless somebody else brings up the subject of their theism. We do have issues as atheists though. How do you explain to a kid who’s told at school that the scouts welcome all kids, why he is refused admission because he doesn’t believe in somebody else’s deity (which is well known now athough the ads, flyers etc dishonestly don’t mention it)? Or George Bush senior’s remarks about atheists in his 1988 Presidential campaign? Apart from things like this most of our issues are shared by the minority religions – enforcement of the majority religion, weddings, funarals etc, relationships with people having different beliefs etc. That’s what I mean by anti-theist; a person not satisfied with God not being proven, but has to go so far as to disprove that which has not yet been proven beyond even the greatest doubts.

You’re still trying to interpret more into it than there actually is, and generalise that to all atheists. I tell believers to substiture Santa Claus in what they tell us to see what they sound like outside their religion. Instead of doing that they often get insulted by the analogy. But try to understand that for  the vast majority of atheists, that would be like not being satisfied with Santa Claus not being proven and going so far as to disprove that which has not yet been proven beyond event he greatest doubts. Most atheists would live and let live if only evangelists, fundamentalists, born-agains etc would leave them in peace. Then you learn that all the ‘anti-theism’ shit isn’t necessary anymore, because of Occam’s Razor – the simplest answer is usually the right one (assuming at least a great majority of variables are known).

As I said that’s a phase that some atheists might have gone through. Most ex-theists just lost their belief in the same waythey lost their Santa Claus belief. stated in my previous post that this can become very semantic. It’s Because when you tell atheists what our position is you have to get it right. From our perspective. Your perspective is not necessarily that of all atheists’. Or perhaps

So? All it takes to be atheist is not to be theist. Period. Anything over and above that is the individual atheist’s addition. It is a mistake to define atheism in terms of these additions as you did. Because atheism is NOT "the belief that natural forces are all there is". Beware of assuming that when somebody tells you what they’re not, that you can deduce what they _are_ by eliminating alternatives. That rarely works because people don’t know all of them ecause they see it from their own perspective not the other guy’s. many other atheist’s got my original point – a secular/atheistic approach to science (which is the proper way to conduct science anyway) will not yield results directly threatening to a nature-based religion because all it does is help us to learn about what kind of "power" (to put it in pagan terms) nature is truly capable of. For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution would not have been the least bit threatening to the pagans of his day – indeed, they would have thought it a goddess-send.

I’ll remind you that you described it as the belief that natural forces are all there is. Whenever science detracts from the percieved traditional doctrines of religions that claim to relate to powers ‘above’ or ‘outside’ nature, it is doing so because it takes miracles out of the hands of their god(s) and puts them into nature. Therefore, a nature-based religion would have no problem accepting many things that other religious types have staged excecutions for. (you know who you are Roman-Catholics, with your God on a Stick!)

That’s religion’s problem, not science’s. Science just describes the way things are. It says nothing about deities, supernatural etc. It just describes how things happen. Scientists who are religious believe they investigate the way their god did it. But they know better than including it in the explanations because it is un-necessary: the explanations are independant of deity. In mathematical terms the result is the same for all values of g. If an expanation depends on or even includes a specific value of g (even g=0 or g~=0) then g becomes subject to the same rules, tools, methods as the rest of it. In practical terms, it doesn’t even include a g variable let alone assign a value to it. Occam’s razor. People who think science should include a g variable miss the point. It works a small step at a time progressing from what is already known, and tests the step before proceeding. But there are an infinitely forking number of possible routes beyond the next step. Which is where Occam’s razor comes in. We check the next step and the result determines where the one after that will go. Cross the bridges when we get there. We haven’t got to a point that requires deity to be hypothesised, investigated etc. If and when we do, it will be investigated just like anything else. But until then we don’t give it a thought. Which isn’t a belief that it doesn’t exist, or a belief that natural forces are all there is. Characterising atheism as either of these confirms the wrong impression that theists have of us, in their minds. Which is why we have to try and be sematically exact when we correct them. Dismissing the correction as nit-picking semantics misses the point. The semantics are what provide meaning. This is what I’ve been trying to explain – that neither Nature-Based Religions nor Atheism (lack of any religion) have to preserve or honor a force "higher" than nature. Nature can be appreciated in its own right and not simply as some devine work of art made by an Invisible Giant Lawn Gnome who lives in the sky.

But that isn’t the same as "believing that … read more »

Response:

I hope you realize by the time this thread is finished I’ll be going over every newsgroup post before I send it as if it were a bloody college research paper Of course. Perhaps a better term would be anti-theist. This is why I No, not that either. While we do react negatively to certain theists, this is ony because of the way they act towards those outside their religion. Nobody would bother with them if they could only live and let live. The problem is that certain denominations of Christianity are extremely intolerant, deny reality when it contradicts their beliefs and try to force others to believe as they do. As I keep trying to explain, atheism per se is a non-event.

You’re nit-picking. I’m speaking of the atheists out there who are more than simple passive non-believers, but actually take the time to think of reasons why god isn’t necessary to believe in. To you such a thing may seem ludicrous – but put yourself in the shoes of a Christer experiencing a major theological crisis and has concluded that the whole ‘god’ idea is bupkiss. Now this poor soul is still occasionally troubled with questions he doesn’t know the answer to. The only thing he can think of is ‘god-did-it’ but he knows there must be a simpler answer than that. This is what I went through. It took a lot of work and mental discipline for me to be faced with an ‘unanswerable’ question and not have the ‘god-did-it’ excuse pop into my head as sheer reflex leftover from all the years of christian brainwashing. Deprogramming oneself is not an easy task, and it may even take years. For some, this becomes an integral part of being a skeptic/atheist – constantly thinking of all those things you used to believe and proving to yourself (among others) just how unnecessary those beliefs truly are. That’s what I mean by anti-theist; a person not satisfied with God not being proven, but has to go so far as to disprove that which has not yet been proven beyond even the greatest doubts. Then you learn that all the ‘anti-theism’ shit isn’t necessary anymore, because of Occam’s Razor – the simplest answer is usually the right one (assuming at least a great majority of variables are known). stated in my previous post that this can become very semantic. It’s Because when you tell atheists what our position is you have to get it right. From our perspective.

Your perspective is not necessarily that of all atheists’. Or perhaps many other atheist’s got my original point – a secular/atheistic approach to science (which is the proper way to conduct science anyway) will not yield results directly threatening to a nature-based religion because all it does is help us to learn about what kind of "power" (to put it in pagan terms) nature is truly capable of. For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution would not have been the least bit threatening to the pagans of his day – indeed, they would have thought it a goddess-send. Whenever science detracts from the percieved traditional doctrines of religions that claim to relate to powers ‘above’ or ‘outside’ nature, it is doing so because it takes miracles out of the hands of their god(s) and puts them into nature. Therefore, a nature-based religion would have no problem accepting many things that other religious types have staged excecutions for. (you know who you are Roman-Catholics, with your God on a Stick!) This is what I’ve been trying to explain – that neither Nature-Based Religions nor Atheism (lack of any religion) have to preserve or honor a force "higher" than nature. Nature can be appreciated in its own right and not simply as some devine work of art made by an Invisible Giant Lawn Gnome who lives in the sky. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – all about finding the right words and phrasing things just right, or so it seems. What I described is (as I have seen, and as I believed during the time that I was a strict atheist and believed in nothing even remotely ‘theistic’) the typical athiest philosophical standing in response to various alternatives, that is, the multitude of differing and diverse theistic standings. I was trying to state that which, in philosophical terms, sets the atheist apart from the theist. There is no "typical atheist philosophical standing". It’s a non-event, merely the absence of the theist’s philosophical standing. You’re projecting the theist’s way of thinking onto us, and possibly your own.

No I am not. The typical atheist’s philosophical standing is that simple answers should be prefered to unnecessarily complicated ones, that contradictions of logic should be rejected, and that explanations involving "god" are no explanation at all. Or at least this is the stand most atheists seem to take when discussing philosophy. (Or did you think that I meant a philosophy they drag around with them every moment of every day?) There is no "philosophy that forces (nature) seem to be the only forces at work now or in the past accounting for the current state and past development of the known Universe based on our current knowledge and understanding of said forces".

I know what you’re saying about the non-issue. But theism and religion are only non-issues if you’re surrounded by nothing but fellow atheists all the time who never interact with non-atheists. The fact is, issues of the origins of the Universe and how things work do come up – are you telling me that atheists have absolutely no opinion whatever as to whether or not there is a "God", and whether or not this god-thing played a role in the formation of the Universe? Atheists are actually undecided about whether or not there’s a God? So Atheism is the same thing as Agnosticism? hmm…that’s news to me. So what about all those who are of the opinion that there is no god, and that subscribe to a purely naturalistic view of the universe, or the "philosophy that forces (nature) seem to be the only forces at work now or in the past accounting for the current state and past development of the known Universe based on our current knowledge and understanding of said forces"? What do you call them if not Atheists (or Pantheists)? We never get to that point. A subconscious application of Occam’s razor.

So if someone asks "do you, or do you not believe in an almighty Space Ghost (without the cape) who created all, even your immortal soul that you can’t see or touch?" you, as an atheist, say "I have no opinion at all on that subject!" Sorry, doesn’t sound like atheism to me. Even agnostics usually at least have an opinion. The typical atheist response is that there is some simpler answer than God. And in most cases, that answer is already available through science (the study of nature) which is what I said to begin with about atheists’ commonality with pagans – there need be no "higher" force than nature in either the pagan or atheistic world view! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now see, ’round these parts you’ve just described an agnostic, not an atheist. May not be the correct use of terms, but in my local cultural climate, non-belief is considered agnosticism, whereas ‘atheism’ is (almost) synonymous with "Die-Hard-Anti-Theism". And that is incorrect – because I have nothing to be agnostic about. Did you miss the part where I have repeatedly said that majority usage attemps to define us according to theistic premises which don’t even apply to us? It’s probably a subtle point (but not to atheists), that by that definition of a agnostic I would be equally agnostic about Santa Claus and all the other things ignorant Christians dismiss as "just something some people believe but they don’t". Agnostics implicitly treat one of the things they don’t believe in, differently from all the other beliefs they don’t have. After all, nobody is expected to be agnostic about Zeus, Odin and all the others.

So as an atheist, if someone asks you whether or not you believe in Santa Clause, you’ll say "I don’t BELIEVE in Santa, but I really have no opinion at all"?? Odd…I’d give an emphatic "No!" followed by "what do I look like, 10 year old?" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s wrong for several reasons: common usage forces a false trichotomy of believing in it, believing-in-not and not knowing either way. None of which describe either the the typical atheist or the typical agnostic – apart from the fact that there is a bait’n’switch from belief (and its absence)  to knowledge (and its absence). It doesn’t permit the position that most atheists actually have – that it’s just somebody else’s belief that would be irrelevant if they didn’t push it. It also makes the unjustified assumption that the theist’s premises apply outside their religion eg that their deity is the only one that an atheist could ever believe in, and that it actually exists outside the confines of the religion.

And you’re spoon-feeding me this why? I know that’s what a lot of religious types do. But I also know that not every non-atheist has some ulterior motive to see atheists made laughing stocks. You sound like you’re coming down with the victim mentality that many Christers seem to have. I will say flat-out as a ‘theist’ (since that seems to be what you consider me, though I still feel that word is completely innapropriate and incredibly insulting for an symbolically animistic pantheist) that atheists are typically the most skeptical, critical, realistic, analytical people that I have the pleasure of meeting. Those are all very respectable qualities. – But atheists are not the only people who have those qualities, nor do all atheists have them. Not all atheists are critical thinkers, and not all critical thinkers are atheists. And I think far too many atheists are dogmatic in the sense that they hide behind the word as if it were some sort of a sheild. Why do you think so many Christers consider atheism a ‘faith’? You really think you can lump all theists into the "idiot" pile and all atheists into the "smart" pile? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why? They use their

… read more »

Response:

forces (nature) seem to be the only forces at work now or in the past accounting for the current state and past development of the known Universe based on our current knowledge and understanding of said forces" better? Not even that. What you’re describing would be performing a conscious action (that of thinking the thoughts you describe) which most of us don’t do. It’s not an -ism, philosophy etc – just a convenient label for the absence of somebody else’s -ism, actually an adjective not a noun. Of course. Perhaps a better term would be anti-theist. This is why I

No, not that either. While we do react negatively to certain theists, this is ony because of the way they act towards those outside their religion. Nobody would bother with them if they could only live and let live. The problem is that certain denominations of Christianity are extremely intolerant, deny reality when it contradicts their beliefs and try to force others to believe as they do. As I keep trying to explain, atheism per se is a non-event. stated in my previous post that this can become very semantic. It’s

Because when you tell atheists what our position is you have to get it right. From our perspective. all about finding the right words and phrasing things just right, or so it seems. What I described is (as I have seen, and as I believed during the time that I was a strict atheist and believed in nothing even remotely ‘theistic’) the typical athiest philosophical standing in response to various alternatives, that is, the multitude of differing and diverse theistic standings. I was trying to state that which, in philosophical terms, sets the atheist apart from the theist.

There is no "typical atheist philosophical standing". It’s a non-event, merely the absence of the theist’s philosophical standing. You’re projecting the theist’s way of thinking onto us, and possibly your own. I in no way intended to describe the atheistic view of ’self’ or the typical point of view on life. Surely if atheists do not hold a religious view, the issue of religion would logically be unimportant except when others who hold such views directly affect the unbeliever’s everyday life.

You’re getting there. There is no "philosophy that forces (nature) seem to be the only forces at work now or in the past accounting for the current state and past development of the known Universe based on our current knowledge and understanding of said forces". We never get to that point. A subconscious application of Occam’s razor. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I was, in no way, attempting to define atheism or paganism – I was merely trying to point out the ways in which atheism [lack of religious faith] and paganism [an "on the fringe" religious faith, according to some] differ from the mainstream religiously faithful. And of course my view of the mainstream religiously faithful is tainted by the atmosphere in which I have lived out my entire life, the USA. In such an atmosphere, where extreme fundamentalists, white supremecists, biblical creationists (whether it be old-earth or young-earth) seem to be in the *overwhelming* majority, you have to be ready to tell them exactly what you do and don’t believe and why you believe that way, otherwise you simply don’t get taken seriousely. I’m not sure if it’s that bad in other areas of the country, but here in the Twin Harbors area, Washington State, it’s simply a part of life. In fact, out of all the people I’ve spoken with in my home town, only about 5 or 6 out of some 600 or so that know me by name, believe that humans evolved from something other than Adam & Eve. And out of those 6, 3 or 4 seem to be of the opinion that Australopithecines came from another planet via a highly advanced race of "zoo-keeper" aliens. I mean, you can’t just say "I don’t believe" and leave it at that around here.

It’s sad. Even in Silicon Valley you get that. Some of the bedroom commuter communities have had to fight creationist dominated school boards. My first exposure to creationism was when a couple of colleagues mentioned Noah’s ark and I laughed because I thought they were joking – and they took me to task because "I shouldn’t laugh at other peoples’ beliefs" (I don’t unless they’re in-my-face about it, I had never expected bible-belt thinking in Silicon Valley). The problem is that _all_ "atheist" says about somebody is what they’re not; it says nothing at all about what they are. In a culture which applies labels to people and addresses the labels instead of the people this can be difficult to grasp – because atheist isn’t a label but a description: just like asymmetric, apolitical and a whole slew of other a- words. A lot of folk want to know what it _is_ not what it isn’t, but that misses the point: it isn’t anything and most of the time being atheist is a non-event. Now see, ’round these parts you’ve just described an agnostic, not an atheist. May not be the correct use of terms, but in my local cultural climate, non-belief is considered agnosticism, whereas ‘atheism’ is (almost) synonymous with "Die-Hard-Anti-Theism".

And that is incorrect – because I have nothing to be agnostic about. Did you miss the part where I have repeatedly said that majority usage attemps to define us according to theistic premises which don’t even apply to us? It’s probably a subtle point (but not to atheists), that by that definition of a agnostic I would be equally agnostic about Santa Claus and all the other things ignorant Christians dismiss as "just something some people believe but they don’t". Agnostics implicitly treat one of the things they don’t believe in, differently from all the other beliefs they don’t have. After all, nobody is expected to be agnostic about Zeus, Odin and all the others. It tries to force us into a least-bad-fit label and then insists that the meaning of the label actually describes us. It’s wrong for several reasons: common usage forces a false trichotomy of believing in it, believing-in-not and not knowing either way. None of which describe either the the typical atheist or the typical agnostic – apart from the fact that there is a bait’n’switch from belief (and its absence)  to knowledge (and its absence). It doesn’t permit the position that most atheists actually have – that it’s just somebody else’s belief that would be irrelevant if they didn’t push it. It also makes the unjustified assumption that the theist’s premises apply outside their religion eg that their deity is the only one that an atheist could ever believe in, and that it actually exists outside the confines of the religion. I know that this is based on misconceptions about what atheism is(n’t). But you must be able to identify with those who hold such misconceptions without delving into a world of "proper terminology" and semantic definitions.

Why? They use their incorrect definitions to misrepresent atheists, including lecturing us about what our perspective "really" is. Like the poster who described non-existant reasons why Gould and Dawkins ignore the supernatural in their work. When they really ignore it because it doesn’t enter into it. Occam’s razor again – it stops long before it ever reaches "the question of God". Not proud to say it, but I think the town in which I live just happens to have the highest total illegal substances mass compared to grey-matter ratio on the whole stinkin’ planet – in fact I’d bet my bottom dollar on that. Per capita, we have the highest illegal/controlled substance abuse in the state of Washington, and Washington has the worst of any state in the country (again, Per capita – we don’t have a very large population [state or city] either).

Ouch. We’re not identified by what we aren’t but what we are. Although I am atheist this doesn’t identify me except as "none of the above" in the specific context of the different theisms. Some folk are Christian, others Moslem, Hindu, Sikh etc. I am none of these. What I _am_ is a software engineer, a cook, a hiker, a classical music enthusiast, a railroad modeller, an aleurophile (I like cats), etc. Which is what I’d always percieved to be the atheistic approach to life. I was merely trying to show how the atheist view of "the whole shmeer" seems to have a lot in common with Paganism – though to the Pagan such things are generally seen as vitally important, and to the Atheist they are rather trivial.

Ok. But you (twice) attributed a philosophy to us which we don’t have because the questions don’t even arise. And a little in this particular post (above) I was trying to show how the local population feels about lack of faith in religion or deities.

A local population which would seem to be remarkably and deliberately ignorant. The problem is that when they tell the world (including us) our position they have to get it right. And when they draw invalid conclusions about us based on their misrepresentation of our position they have to be corrected. The fact that I am atheist is only incidental to me and my worldview, it is not central to it like a theist’s god belief or even a Wiccan’s view of nature. I never said (nor meant to imply) otherwise. That is what I assumed to be the case with the majority of atheists.

Ok. But you (twice) told us we had a philosophy that consciously excluded the supernatural. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –                I was trying to phrase it in a way that would be an accurate description of both Atheism and Paganism without detracting or adding to either. BUT – I think you really know what I was getting at, this is only a semantic difference; Atheism and Paganism have common ground in the basic philosophy that there is (or no reason to believe there is) anything "above"

… read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [Snipped] It kind of reminds me of a book I referenced here a few weeks ago – "Finding Darwin’s God", a book about evolution & religion, written by a Christian. He takes to task the more dogmatic and "fundamentalist" atheist scientists, like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, for their criticisms of religion and religious people.  While there is something to be said for the "objective" point of view (if anyone can ever truly be objective about anything) there is also something to be gleaned from the not-entirely objective POV – whether that subjective attitude comes from someone both friendly to or critical of its subject matter. [Snipped] Hmm…I always thought the point of Atheism was that nature alone is responsible for all we see – not some floating space-giant. Seems to me that many pagan trads have more in common with Atheism (with nature alone being the creative force) than with Christianity (the space-giant hypothesis).

No. All atheist means is not being theist – anything over and above that is up to the individual atheist. It says nothing at all about "nature alone is responsible…." and that is not a belief held by many atheists. It would be more accurate to say that we have no reason to suspect anything beyond nature, and that those who claim there is have to demonstrate it. People like the earlier poster who criticise acience and scientists for not taking religious explanations into account simply don’t understand how scientists use the scientific method. If something isn’t objective it can’t be scientific – the important point is that the explanations, hypotheses etc are testable by anybody (sometimes needing access to the right equipment) and that if the explanations hadn’t been shown to work they aren’t accepted. By and large religion and religious people only get criticised when they bringtheir claims into the scientific arena when they become subject to the methods, tools etc of science. Unfortunately the Western World’s opredominant religion is an evangelising one that compels its followers to do that – whichis their problem not science’s. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Criticize Atheism, and you shoot yourself in the foot — many integral aspects of Wicca and Paganism (specifically the kinship with our fellow animals – and to a greater extent, all of nature) are revealed by the secular approach to physics (predictable ‘rules’ which nature follows), chemistry (can anyone say "Alchemy"?), and evolution (animals and plants as our ‘family’). A secular and often Atheistic approach to science (the study of nature) shows us that nature itself contains the ‘power’ or ‘energy’ or whatever term you prefer, to produce the beautifully formed and fragile balance we see in all around us. It makes the "goddidditt" excuse seem cheap and hollow — and in my opinion, only serves to strengthen the one major definitive characteristic of Pagan philosophy – the adoration of nature. D. Jon Scott (Corvun Saepius) www.geocities.com/thewaysofold/main.html

Response:

[Snipped] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It kind of reminds me of a book I referenced here a few weeks ago – "Finding Darwin’s God", a book about evolution & religion, written by a Christian. He takes to task the more dogmatic and "fundamentalist" atheist scientists, like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, for their criticisms of religion and religious people.  While there is something to be said for the "objective" point of view (if anyone can ever truly be objective about anything) there is also something to be gleaned from the not-entirely objective POV – whether that subjective attitude comes from someone both friendly to or critical of its subject matter.

[Snipped] Hmm…I always thought the point of Atheism was that nature alone is responsible for all we see – not some floating space-giant. Seems to me that many pagan trads have more in common with Atheism (with nature alone being the creative force) than with Christianity (the space-giant hypothesis). Criticize Atheism, and you shoot yourself in the foot — many integral aspects of Wicca and Paganism (specifically the kinship with our fellow animals – and to a greater extent, all of nature) are revealed by the secular approach to physics (predictable ‘rules’ which nature follows), chemistry (can anyone say "Alchemy"?), and evolution (animals and plants as our ‘family’). A secular and often Atheistic approach to science (the study of nature) shows us that nature itself contains the ‘power’ or ‘energy’ or whatever term you prefer, to produce the beautifully formed and fragile balance we see in all around us. It makes the "goddidditt" excuse seem cheap and hollow — and in my opinion, only serves to strengthen the one major definitive characteristic of Pagan philosophy – the adoration of nature. D. Jon Scott (Corvun Saepius) www.geocities.com/thewaysofold/main.html

Response:

forces (nature) seem to be the only forces at work now or in the past accounting for the current state and past development of the known Universe based on our current knowledge and understanding of said forces" better? Not even that. What you’re describing would be performing a conscious action (that of thinking the thoughts you describe) which most of us don’t do. It’s not an -ism, philosophy etc – just a convenient label for the absence of somebody else’s -ism, actually an adjective not a noun.

Of course. Perhaps a better term would be anti-theist. This is why I stated in my previous post that this can become very semantic. It’s all about finding the right words and phrasing things just right, or so it seems. What I described is (as I have seen, and as I believed during the time that I was a strict atheist and believed in nothing even remotely ‘theistic’) the typical athiest philosophical standing in response to various alternatives, that is, the multitude of differing and diverse theistic standings. I was trying to state that which, in philosophical terms, sets the atheist apart from the theist. I in no way intended to describe the atheistic view of ’self’ or the typical point of view on life. Surely if atheists do not hold a religious view, the issue of religion would logically be unimportant except when others who hold such views directly affect the unbeliever’s everyday life. I was, in no way, attempting to define atheism or paganism – I was merely trying to point out the ways in which atheism [lack of religious faith] and paganism [an "on the fringe" religious faith, according to some] differ from the mainstream religiously faithful. And of course my view of the mainstream religiously faithful is tainted by the atmosphere in which I have lived out my entire life, the USA. In such an atmosphere, where extreme fundamentalists, white supremecists, biblical creationists (whether it be old-earth or young-earth) seem to be in the *overwhelming* majority, you have to be ready to tell them exactly what you do and don’t believe and why you believe that way, otherwise you simply don’t get taken seriousely. I’m not sure if it’s that bad in other areas of the country, but here in the Twin Harbors area, Washington State, it’s simply a part of life. In fact, out of all the people I’ve spoken with in my home town, only about 5 or 6 out of some 600 or so that know me by name, believe that humans evolved from something other than Adam & Eve. And out of those 6, 3 or 4 seem to be of the opinion that Australopithecines came from another planet via a highly advanced race of "zoo-keeper" aliens. I mean, you can’t just say "I don’t believe" and leave it at that around here. The problem is that _all_ "atheist" says about somebody is what they’re not; it says nothing at all about what they are. In a culture which applies labels to people and addresses the labels instead of the people this can be difficult to grasp – because atheist isn’t a label but a description: just like asymmetric, apolitical and a whole slew of other a- words. A lot of folk want to know what it _is_ not what it isn’t, but that misses the point: it isn’t anything and most of the time being atheist is a non-event.

Now see, ’round these parts you’ve just described an agnostic, not an atheist. May not be the correct use of terms, but in my local cultural climate, non-belief is considered agnosticism, whereas ‘atheism’ is (almost) synonymous with "Die-Hard-Anti-Theism". I know that this is based on misconceptions about what atheism is(n’t). But you must be able to identify with those who hold such misconceptions without delving into a world of "proper terminology" and semantic definitions. Not proud to say it, but I think the town in which I live just happens to have the highest total illegal substances mass compared to grey-matter ratio on the whole stinkin’ planet – in fact I’d bet my bottom dollar on that. Per capita, we have the highest illegal/controlled substance abuse in the state of Washington, and Washington has the worst of any state in the country (again, Per capita – we don’t have a very large population [state or city] either). We’re not identified by what we aren’t but what we are. Although I am atheist this doesn’t identify me except as "none of the above" in the specific context of the different theisms. Some folk are Christian, others Moslem, Hindu, Sikh etc. I am none of these. What I _am_ is a software engineer, a cook, a hiker, a classical music enthusiast, a railroad modeller, an aleurophile (I like cats), etc.

Which is what I’d always percieved to be the atheistic approach to life. I was merely trying to show how the atheist view of "the whole shmeer" seems to have a lot in common with Paganism – though to the Pagan such things are generally seen as vitally important, and to the Atheist they are rather trivial. And a little in this particular post (above) I was trying to show how the local population feels about lack of faith in religion or deities. The fact that I am atheist is only incidental to me and my worldview, it is not central to it like a theist’s god belief or even a Wiccan’s view of nature.

I never said (nor meant to imply) otherwise. That is what I assumed to be the case with the majority of atheists.                I was trying to phrase it in a way that would be an accurate description of both Atheism and Paganism without detracting or adding to either. BUT – I think you really know what I was getting at, this is only a semantic difference; Atheism and Paganism have common ground in the basic philosophy that there is (or no reason to believe there is) anything "above" nature. Even that’s adding something to atheism that isn’t there.

No, it’s stating what is obviousely implied by the lack of belief in deities; if nature was not created by an outside force, then it must be self-existing in one way or another (either it [for lack of better words] ‘created’ itself or it just simply "is"). Thus, in the atheistic view, there cannot be anything "above" nature. In the pagan view, nature itself is the ‘deity’ and thus nothing "above" nature can exist either. No. That is a common misconception. The problem is that common/majority usage gets atheists (and probably pagans too) wrong because the theist majority don’t understand either and misinterpret the positions based on premises that don’t even apply outside the virtual reality of the religion. Skepticism isn’t a philosophy, more of an attitude and atheism isn’t a philosophy either but the absence of a specific -ism.

I would agree that Skepticism would be easier to describe to someone as an ‘attitude’ while still keeping its intent than to call it a ‘philosophy’. But even science stems from the ‘philosophy’ of scientism. ‘Philosophy’ can be a VERY general, if not a little vague, term. Sometimes this makes it harder to communicate what is entailed in one ‘philosophy’ to a member of another ‘philosophy’. Even active atheists aren’t really active. The problem here is the use of language and the way it’s interpreted by the listener. The atheist who says he believes God doesn’t exist would very likely say he believes Santa Claus doesn’t exist, and the one who says there’s no God says it in exactly the same vein as "there ain’t no Santa

Claus". And this is why I call myself an atheist. But this doesn’t mean stories can’t hold value; Romeo & Juliet, The Epic of Gilgamesh, Beowulf (sp?), etc. – all can have special cultural and personal meanings, even if the reader acknowledges that they are pure fiction. And so are tales like "The Descent of the Goddess" or poems such as "The Charge of the God" and "The Charge of the Dark Goddess" to me and the way I see the world around me. The symbolism makes it possible to create the delusionally euphoric sense of ‘awe’ in that it creates a framework through which to interpret facts in a spiritually fulfilling manner. And though it is unnecessary, it can be quite benneficial and even highly enlightening – especially when you know that it is ‘mere’ symbolism and you can still snap yourself back into reality when you need to, unlike most Christers I’ve met. For both active and passive atheists God is seen in cultural and anthropological terms: something that somebody else believes.

And in many forms of Wicca and Paganism, God(s)/Goddess(es) are seen in cultural, anthropological, and symbolic terms: something that somebody else once believed and that we explore because we find it interesting. Though, the majority of Wiccans/Pagans take their God(s) literally – I am in the minority in this view, even among Pagans. Some pagans describe themselves as atheist and others don’t so I accept what they say about themselves. As you say it’s a grey area. If you define theism as having a god to do the sort of things people tend to do with gods, them pagans would be theists. You don’t actually have to believe in gods to have them, they can be symbolic.

I’d have to disagree here. Let’s say you have a cat-in-the-hat book (by Dr. Seuss) in your house. Now, you may not like the cat-in-the-hat, let alone believe it exists. But I could just as easily claim that you don’t have to believe in the cat-in-the-hat to have one, even if you know it’s a fictional character. I could characterize you as a "cat-in-the-hat-ist" and say that you were a nut. All for having that damned book in your house. Which, of course, is why I don’t like to be called a ‘theist’ – I don’t believe in magickal faeries or dragons or centaurs, but the stories and symbols still hold value for me. Still, to characterize me as a ‘theist’ would imply that I did believe in such things – it’d be like calling me a nut. Suffice it to say, I’d be very insulted. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I tend to explain atheist as not having any deity to do the sort of things theists do with their gods, but

… read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hmm…I always thought the point of Atheism was that nature alone is responsible for all we see – not some floating space-giant. Seems to me that many pagan trads have more in common with Atheism (with nature alone being the creative force) than with Christianity (the space-giant hypothesis). No. All atheist means is not being theist – anything over and above that is up to the individual atheist. It says nothing at all about "nature alone is responsible…." and that is not a belief held by many atheists. It would be more accurate to say that we have no reason to suspect anything beyond nature, and that those who claim there is have to demonstrate it.

Pardon me, I see I should rephrase what I said. Howzabout, "natural forces (nature) seem to be the only forces at work now or in the past accounting for the current state and past development of the known Universe based on our current knowledge and understanding of said forces" better? I was trying to phrase it in a way that would be an accurate description of both Atheism and Paganism without detracting or adding to either. BUT – I think you really know what I was getting at, this is only a semantic difference; Atheism and Paganism have common ground in the basic philosophy that there is (or no reason to believe there is) anything "above" nature. And the description you give of Atheism seems to be more in line with ‘Skepticism’, which generally goes hand-in-hand with Atheism. All the Atheists I have met are Skeptics, and visa-versa, but that does not make the two philosophies the same. Skepticism asks for proof of outlandish claims (such as those involving the Christian Sky-Pixie), where as Atheism is a simple lack of belief in any god[s]/goddess[es] (passive atheism) or a strong disbelief in any god[s]/goddess[es] (active atheism). Since some Pagans consider god[s]/goddess[es] to be purely symbolic, this creates a definite grey area; many Pagans invoke the power of god[s]/goddess[es] as a symbolic gesture in order to tap in to the aspect of nature that said god[s]/goddess[es] supposedly represent. Since these Pagans do not actually believe the god[s]/goddess[es] "exist" in the true sense of the word, they could very easily be called Atheists as well. But that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms. I consider myself to be one of the afore mentioned "Pagan Atheists". There can be a common ground.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hmm…I always thought the point of Atheism was that nature alone is responsible for all we see – not some floating space-giant. Seems to me that many pagan trads have more in common with Atheism (with nature alone being the creative force) than with Christianity (the space-giant hypothesis). No. All atheist means is not being theist – anything over and above that is up to the individual atheist. It says nothing at all about "nature alone is responsible…." and that is not a belief held by many atheists. It would be more accurate to say that we have no reason to suspect anything beyond nature, and that those who claim there is have to demonstrate it. Pardon me, I see I should rephrase what I said. Howzabout, "natural

No problem. forces (nature) seem to be the only forces at work now or in the past accounting for the current state and past development of the known Universe based on our current knowledge and understanding of said forces" better?

Not even that. What you’re describing would be performing a conscious action (that of thinking the thoughts you describe) which most of us don’t do. It’s not an -ism, philosophy etc – just a convenient label for the absence of somebody else’s -ism, actually an adjective not a noun. To illustrate this, when you take a shower do you think "Zeus didn’t make the water come through the pipes"? The problem is that _all_ "atheist" says about somebody is what they’re not; it says nothing at all about what they are. In a culture which applies labels to people and addresses the labels instead of the people this can be difficult to grasp – because atheist isn’t a label but a description: just like asymmetric, apolitical and a whole slew of other a- words. A lot of folk want to know what it _is_ not what it isn’t, but that misses the point: it isn’t anything and most of the time being atheist is a non-event We’re not identified by what we aren’t but what we are. Although I am atheist this doesn’t identify me except as "none of the above" in the specific context of the different theisms. Some folk are Christian, others Moslem, Hindu, Sikh etc. I am none of these. What I _am_ is a software engineer, a cook, a hiker, a classical music enthusiast, a railroad modeller, an aleurophile (I like cats), etc.   The fact that I am atheist is only incidental to me and my worldview, it is not central to it like a theist’s god belief or even a Wiccan’s view of nature.                I was trying to phrase it in a way that would be an accurate description of both Atheism and Paganism without detracting or adding to either. BUT – I think you really know what I was getting at, this is only a semantic difference; Atheism and Paganism have common ground in the basic philosophy that there is (or no reason to believe there is) anything "above" nature.

Even that’s adding something to atheism that isn’t there.   And the description you give of Atheism seems to be more in line with ‘Skepticism’, which generally goes hand-in-hand with Atheism. All the Atheists I have met are Skeptics, and visa-versa, but that does not make the two philosophies the same. Skepticism asks for proof of outlandish claims (such as those involving the Christian Sky-Pixie), where as Atheism is a simple lack of belief in any god[s]/goddess[es] (passive atheism) or a strong disbelief in any god[s]/goddess[es] (active atheism).

No. That is a common misconception. The problem is that common/majority usage gets atheists (and probably pagans too) wrong because the theist majority don’t understand either and misinterpret the positions based on premises that don’t even apply outside the virtual reality of the religion. Skepticism isn’t a philosophy, more of an attitude and atheism isn’t a philosophy either but the absence of a specific -ism. Even active atheists aren’t really active. The problem here is the use of language and the way it’s interpreted by the listener. The atheist who says he believes God doesn’t exist would very likely say he believes Santa Claus doesn’t exist, and the one who says there’s no God says it in exactly the same vein as "there ain’t no Santa Claus". For both active and passive atheists God is seen in cultural and anthropological terms: something that somebody else believes. Not the active belief that "the creator of the universe and most important thing there is" doesn’t exist which is how believers misrepresent us because they don’t understand just how ill-defined "God" is and that it means different things to different people. Common usage attempts to describe us as though the theist’s perception applied to us. Since some Pagans consider god[s]/goddess[es] to be purely symbolic, this creates a definite grey area; many Pagans invoke the power of god[s]/goddess[es] as a symbolic gesture in order to tap in to the aspect of nature that said god[s]/goddess[es] supposedly represent. Since these Pagans do not actually believe the god[s]/goddess[es] "exist" in the true sense of the word, they could very easily be called Atheists as well. But that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.

Yes. Some pagans describe themselves as atheist and others don’t so I accept what they say about themselves. As you say it’s a grey area. If you define theism as having a god to do the sort of things people tend to do with gods, them pagans would be theists. You don’t actually have to believe in gods to have them, they can be symbolic. I tend to explain atheist as not having any deity to do the sort of things theists do with their gods, but then I came from a country where the established religion is largely symbolic and cultural, and the majority who call themselves Christian don’t have the kind of absolute belief Christians in the USA do. I consider myself to be one of the afore mentioned "Pagan Atheists". There can be a common ground.

Yeah. We had a regular here a while back who was a Wiccan. Initially she thought of herself as a sort of non-believing theist and then described herself as atheist – based on the "not believing in any god or gods" definition. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Question:

if you’re an accountant looking to build your practice, be aware of a phone call you may receive from a Lise Buscher.  she pretends to know what she’s doing as far as building a practice is concerned.  all she does is sign up bogus appointmements or clients none of us would touch with a 10-foot pole, pretend it’s legit, then charge you for it.  trust me, she over promises and under delivers.  she may also be practicing under the name of "ron newman’s office" or "accounting consultants & payroll service".  in any event, be extremely careful. michael e. blount, cpa managing director blount & company, llp

Response:

Does she operate in a particular area of the country or is she strictly internet? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – if you’re an accountant looking to build your practice, be aware of a phone call you may receive from a Lise Buscher.  she pretends to know what she’s doing as far as building a practice is concerned.  all she does is sign up bogus appointmements or clients none of us would touch with a 10-foot pole, pretend it’s legit, then charge you for it.  trust me, she over promises and under delivers.  she may also be practicing under the name of "ron newman’s office" or "accounting consultants & payroll service".  in any event, be extremely careful. michael e. blount, cpa managing director blount & company, llp

Response:

Question:

A couple of novice questions concerning this thread: 1) Why is the Nikon 24mm f2.8 MANUAL focus lens more expensive than the 24mm f2.8D AUTO focus lens?

1)  More people want AF lenses.  Greater production = lower prices. 2)  Manual-focus lenses use metal focus helicoids.  AF lenses use less expensive, plastic ones.  (They work well but they are cheaper.  This is one reason why AF lenses feel looser than MF lenses.) 2) Many people in this newsgroup say Nikon/Nikkor lenses produce better image quality even though photodo.com often gives the equivalent Sigma lenses a higher grade.  (I believe this true for the 24mm.)  Should I believe the quantitative, and objective, photodo grades or the qualitative, but subjective, recommendations from this newsgroup?  I’m leaning towards the subjective recommendations, but then what is photodo.com good for?

Frankly, I haven’t found photodo’s ratings to bear that much semblance to reality, but in general, you should look at both.  I’m a big fan of Popular Photography’s ratings, which seem to match my real-life experiences much more closely than photodo’s.  But talk to lots of people who own (and have owned) the lens you want; that won’t hurt. My own subjective recommendation:  Nikon’s AF 28/2.8D kicks serious butt. What a lens.  And from what I’ve heard, the 24 is just as good or better (although I don’t own one). For an inexpensive 24, Tamron’s MF 24/2.5 is a very good lens.  (Yes, I own one.) Jim

Response:

1) Why is the Nikon 24mm f2.8 MANUAL focus lens more expensive than the 24mm f2.8D AUTO focus lens? Because it’s built better, for one thing. There’s more metal in the assembly. AF lenses use lighter materials, i.e. carbon fiber and plastic, to reduce weight and facilitate motor-driven focusing action. It’s cheaper, too. And the AF lenses are in much higher production.

And then there’s the marketing aspect. Jasper

Response:

Dear Bob, In my opinion, the Nikon autofocus lenses are cheaper than the manual focus lenses because they are sold much better than the manual ones. Like Olympus Epic, it is now about $90 compared with the old price that was about $140-150 a few years ago.  Another reason is the high competition in autofocus market that price stategy is applied. About the second question, I also used to ask myself.  My answer is using both ways to collect the useful information.  At least you will know that a lens should be good or bad when both data go to the same way. In fact, people have their own standards.  That means the bias is unavoidable in the most cases.  A lab test is also done in the place that you don’t know with the object that you may not want.  Let’s think that  photographic lens is one complicated thing and there are many definitions of a good lens.  In general, however,  all of the good things don’t stay in the same place. But you can choose some good things you want to one lens. Please answer yourself that what kind of these good things you would like to have them, such as, color rendition, tone, sharpness, contrast etc. After that, searh for the information, buy them, test them and, of course, return or sell them if they are not the real thing you want. Best regards, Sayam – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A couple of novice questions concerning this thread: 1) Why is the Nikon 24mm f2.8 MANUAL focus lens more expensive than the 24mm f2.8D AUTO focus lens? See: (http://www.bhphoto.com/photo/35mm/nikon/afprices.html and http://www.bhphoto.com/photo/35mm/nikon/mfprices.html#fixed ) 2) Many people in this newsgroup say Nikon/Nikkor lenses produce better image quality even though photodo.com often gives the equivalent Sigma lenses a higher grade.  (I believe this true for the 24mm.)  Should I believe the quantitative, and objective, photodo grades or the qualitative, but subjective, recommendations from this newsgroup?  I’m leaning towards the subjective recommendations, but then what is photodo.com good for? See:

(http://www.photodo.com/templates/Action.lasso?-database=products.fp3&-l ayou t=CameraLenses&-response=XDetail.lasso&-recid=33882&-search

http://www.photodo.com/templates/Action.lasso?-database=products.fp3&-la yout =CameraLenses&-response=XDetail.lasso&-recid=34992&-search ) Thanks, Bob

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear NKNK, I used to own a 20mm lens for a while.  In that time, a 24mm lens was also in my bag.  In my opinion, the 20mm is so wide that you can easily compose any picture.  Almost everything in its frame looks much smaller than the normal perspective in my sense.  The sky is possible to be a main object when taking a picture without carefulness.  Of course, the distortion is more difficult to control as rstephen’s and frostycat’s comments.  Although using this lens to take an excellent picture is a fine art in my point, I prefer to choose the choice of the 24mm instead.  The 24mm lens not only gives very good perspective in landscape, but the combination between people and surrounding are produced perfectly as well.  Other profits from the 24mm lens are that it is much cheaper and takes a smaller filter.  This suggestion depends on your budget and lenses both in the present and future.  About the lens quality, I don’t know about the AFD lenses because I have had the AIS lenses. Finally, I strongly agree with frostycat to try both lenses before making the last decision.  Don’t believe your ears but your eyes. Best regards, Sayam I could use some advice to decide between 24mm and 20mm 2.8 D as a first wide angle to buy. I have tentatively and reluctantly eliminated the 28 as I have heard that the 24 is better, and a 35 because I want more coverage. My concern is that the 20 will be too wide and get limited use (outdoors..landscapes). Quality is important to me –build,sharpness, contrast, lack of distortion. My preference is for primes over zooms, but price aside, how good are the best wide angle zooms? Thank oyu for your patience with me on this. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

A couple of novice questions concerning this thread: 1) Why is the Nikon 24mm f2.8 MANUAL focus lens more expensive than the 24mm f2.8D AUTO focus lens?

Because it’s built better, for one thing. There’s more metal in the assembly. AF lenses use lighter materials, i.e. carbon fiber and plastic, to reduce weight and facilitate motor-driven focusing action. It’s cheaper, too. And the AF lenses are in much higher production. Spoo

Response:

I could use some advice to decide between 24mm and 20mm 2.8 D as a first wide angle to buy.

I have both a 24mm and an 18mm. I haven’t used the 24 in months. During that time the 18 has been used hundreds of times. _any_ wide takes some practice. Distortion is not the issue with either of them. What is difficult is accounting for the fact that everything appears further away, but due to that, close things take on extreme importance.  That’s no more distortion than the flatness caused by telephotos, but it is more of a problem with people’s faces if they are not flat with respect to the camera. N

Response:

A couple of novice questions concerning this thread: 1) Why is the Nikon 24mm f2.8 MANUAL focus lens more expensive than the 24mm f2.8D AUTO focus lens? See: (http://www.bhphoto.com/photo/35mm/nikon/afprices.html and http://www.bhphoto.com/photo/35mm/nikon/mfprices.html#fixed ) 2) Many people in this newsgroup say Nikon/Nikkor lenses produce better image quality even though photodo.com often gives the equivalent Sigma lenses a higher grade.  (I believe this true for the 24mm.)  Should I believe the quantitative, and objective, photodo grades or the qualitative, but subjective, recommendations from this newsgroup?  I’m leaning towards the subjective recommendations, but then what is photodo.com good for? See: (http://www.photodo.com/templates/Action.lasso?-database=products.fp3&… t=CameraLenses&-response=XDetail.lasso&-recid=33882&-search http://www.photodo.com/templates/Action.lasso?-database=products.fp3&… =CameraLenses&-response=XDetail.lasso&-recid=34992&-search ) Thanks, Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear NKNK, I used to own a 20mm lens for a while.  In that time, a 24mm lens was also in my bag.  In my opinion, the 20mm is so wide that you can easily compose any picture.  Almost everything in its frame looks much smaller than the normal perspective in my sense.  The sky is possible to be a main object when taking a picture without carefulness.  Of course, the distortion is more difficult to control as rstephen’s and frostycat’s comments.  Although using this lens to take an excellent picture is a fine art in my point, I prefer to choose the choice of the 24mm instead.  The 24mm lens not only gives very good perspective in landscape, but the combination between people and surrounding are produced perfectly as well.  Other profits from the 24mm lens are that it is much cheaper and takes a smaller filter.  This suggestion depends on your budget and lenses both in the present and future.  About the lens quality, I don’t know about the AFD lenses because I have had the AIS lenses. Finally, I strongly agree with frostycat to try both lenses before making the last decision.  Don’t believe your ears but your eyes. Best regards, Sayam I could use some advice to decide between 24mm and 20mm 2.8 D as a first wide angle to buy. I have tentatively and reluctantly eliminated the 28 as I have heard that the 24 is better, and a 35 because I want more coverage. My concern is that the 20 will be too wide and get limited use (outdoors..landscapes). Quality is important to me –build,sharpness, contrast, lack of distortion. My preference is for primes over zooms, but price aside, how good are the best wide angle zooms? Thank oyu for your patience with me on this. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Dear NKNK, I used to own a 20mm lens for a while.  In that time, a 24mm lens was also in my bag.  In my opinion, the 20mm is so wide that you can easily compose any picture.  Almost everything in its frame looks much smaller than the normal perspective in my sense.  The sky is possible to be a main object when taking a picture without carefulness.  Of course, the distortion is more difficult to control as rstephen’s and frostycat’s comments.  Although using this lens to take an excellent picture is a fine art in my point, I prefer to choose the choice of the 24mm instead.  The 24mm lens not only gives very good perspective in landscape, but the combination between people and surrounding are produced perfectly as well.  Other profits from the 24mm lens are that it is much cheaper and takes a smaller filter.  This suggestion depends on your budget and lenses both in the present and future.  About the lens quality, I don’t know about the AFD lenses because I have had the AIS lenses. Finally, I strongly agree with frostycat to try both lenses before making the last decision.  Don’t believe your ears but your eyes. Best regards, Sayam I could use some advice to decide between 24mm and 20mm 2.8 D as a first wide angle to buy. I have tentatively and reluctantly eliminated the 28 as I have heard that the 24 is better, and a 35 because I want more coverage. My concern is that the 20 will be too wide and get limited use

(outdoors..landscapes). Quality is important to me –build,sharpness, contrast, lack of distortion. My preference is for primes over zooms, but price aside, how good are the best wide angle zooms? Thank oyu for your patience with me on this.

Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Don’t know the answer to that. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does Sigma 24mm have more distortion than Nikkor 24mm? How about vignetting when using the ordinary Tiffen 52mm UV filter? Or, I need to use the thin one. About an hour ago, I ordered a Sigma 24mm f2.8 for Nikon. I’ve been checking this lens out recently, even tho I owned one a couple of years back for a Canon EOS, but this one is for my Nikons. It appears to be higher-rated at Photodo than the Nikon lens by a considerable margin, and my previous experience with it bears that out…it was an extremely sharp, contrasty lens.  Also, it’s got a very nice price; $169 from B&H. I also feel that the 20mm is a bid wide for my purposes. I have a 28-105 and I find myself wishing for something a bit wider quite often. I think 24mm is an excellent choice.

– http://www.enteract.com/~ckross/ Digital and Film-Based Photography

Response:

Does Sigma 24mm have more distortion than Nikkor 24mm? How about vignetting when using the ordinary Tiffen 52mm UV filter? Or, I need to use the thin one.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – About an hour ago, I ordered a Sigma 24mm f2.8 for Nikon. I’ve been checking this lens out recently, even tho I owned one a couple of years back for a Canon EOS, but this one is for my Nikons. It appears to be higher-rated at Photodo than the Nikon lens by a considerable margin, and my previous experience with it bears that out…it was an extremely sharp, contrasty lens.  Also, it’s got a very nice price; $169 from B&H. I also feel that the 20mm is a bid wide for my purposes. I have a 28-105 and I find myself wishing for something a bit wider quite often. I think 24mm is an excellent choice.

Response:

About an hour ago, I ordered a Sigma 24mm f2.8 for Nikon. I’ve been checking this lens out recently, even tho I owned one a couple of years back for a Canon EOS, but this one is for my Nikons. It appears to be higher-rated at Photodo than the Nikon lens by a considerable margin, and my previous experience with it bears that out…it was an extremely sharp, contrasty lens.  Also, it’s got a very nice price; $169 from B&H. I also feel that the 20mm is a bid wide for my purposes. I have a 28-105 and I find myself wishing for something a bit wider quite often. I think 24mm is an excellent choice. I could use some advice to decide between 24mm and 20mm 2.8 D as a first wide angle to buy. I have tentatively and reluctantly eliminated the 28 as I have heard that the 24 is better, and a 35 because I want more coverage. My concern is that the 20 will be too wide and get limited use (outdoors..landscapes). Quality is important to me –build,sharpness, contrast, lack of distortion. My preference is for primes over zooms, but price aside, how good are the best wide angle zooms? Thank oyu for your patience with me on this.

– http://www.enteract.com/~ckross/ Digital and Film-Based Photography

Response:

Based on your messsage, I’d suggest the 24.  Nice wide coverage but distortion still pretty well controlled.  The 20 is, of course, wider but distortion really starts coming on.  Surprisingly, not bad at true infinity, but closer objects really start wrapping around. Notwithstanding my impression of your post however, before buying I would take your body to a camera store and try both of these on. Viewfinder very good indication of what your print will look like. Both are very nice lenses, in my opinion. I could use some advice to decide between 24mm and 20mm 2.8 D as a first wide angle to buy. I have tentatively and reluctantly eliminated the 28 as I have heard that the 24 is better, and a 35 because I want more coverage. My concern is that the 20 will be too wide and get limited use

(outdoors..landscapes). Quality is important to me –build,sharpness, contrast, lack of distortion. My preference is for primes over zooms, but price aside, how good are the best wide angle zooms? Thank oyu for your patience with me on this.

Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

I faced the same decision a few months ago.  24 or 20.  (I have the 28-70 3-4.5)  I finally decided on the 24.   The 20 (to me) just seemed too wide for my use and I thought I’d have to be alot more specific what to use it on to avoid any distortion scenes.   Most of the situations that I had wanted a wider lens for, I only needed a little bit wider.   I’ve only had it for a month or so, but I love it… I’ve pretty much stopped using the zoom and just used the 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 for most situations.  I also have a 70-300ED that get a decent amount of use on my N70. RStephen Winter http://redshift.home.mindspring.com

I could use some advice to decide between 24mm and 20mm 2.8 D as a first wide angle to buy. I have tentatively and reluctantly eliminated the 28 as I have heard that the 24 is better, and a 35 because I want more coverage. My concern is that the 20 will be too wide and get limited use

(outdoors..landscapes). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Quality is important to me –build,sharpness, contrast, lack of distortion. My preference is for primes over zooms, but price aside, how good are the best wide angle zooms? Thank oyu for your patience with me on this.

Response:

I could use some advice to decide between 24mm and 20mm 2.8 D as a first wide angle to buy. I have tentatively and reluctantly eliminated the 28 as I have heard that the 24 is better, and a 35 because I want more coverage. My concern is that the 20 will be too wide and get limited use (outdoors..landscapes). Quality is important to me –build,sharpness, contrast, lack of distortion. My preference is for primes over zooms, but price aside, how good are the best wide angle zooms? Thank oyu for your patience with me on this.

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 4. It appears, at first blush, that financing for boats older than 15 years (maybe less) is a real pain or maybe not feasible at all (especially if the boat is wood as opposed to glass or steel/aluminum). I just bought a boat that is more than 20 years old (fiberglass sailboat). It was a little difficult finding a financer at first, and when we did the interest rate was higher than if we’d bought a newer boat. However, in the end there were many people willing to finance us. I’ve heard that wooden boats are in fact almost impossible to finance and insure. If you would like to know the names of the banks we tried just email me. -Rob

And then on the other hand, we financed a boat with a hull built in 1889. It surveyed okay and the bank didn’t hesitate. You just have to know where to go. The Rot Doctor http://www.rotdoctor.com Phone: 206 783 0307 Fax: 206 783 0582

Response:

4. It appears, at first blush, that financing for boats older than 15 years (maybe less) is a real pain or maybe not feasible at all (especially if the boat is wood as opposed to glass or steel/aluminum).

I just bought a boat that is more than 20 years old (fiberglass sailboat). It was a little difficult finding a financer at first, and when we did the interest rate was higher than if we’d bought a newer boat. However, in the end there were many people willing to finance us. I’ve heard that wooden boats are in fact almost impossible to finance and insure. If you would like to know the names of the banks we tried just email me. -Rob

Response:

The wife and I are giving serious consideration to purchasing a trawler as a liveaboard. However, this won’t occur for at least two years (waiting until the youngest graduates and gives us time to research). I’m reading everything I can get my hands on and asking tons of questions; but, I’m concerned about what we can really afford based upon the following: 1. We are a couple of "modest" means (less than six figures a year combined income). 2. We would have to sell the land home (could not afford to maintain both). 3. We recognize that new is out of the question (especially since we believe, at this point, 45 to 50 feet depending on layout to be sufficient). 4. It appears, at first blush, that financing for boats older than 15 years (maybe less) is a real pain or maybe not feasible at all (especially if the boat is wood as opposed to glass or steel/aluminum). 5. The 20% down could be done; but, on anything above 200K final selling price would also be out of the question (unless there is some "creative financing" I’m not currently aware of). 6. The asking price of what we’ve seen in the Pacific NW seems to be way out of line compared to the high retail average listed in the Powerboat Guide (even accounting for the 10 – 15% regional "markup"). I’m (hopefully) not trying to build barriers to actually making this happen. Just trying to look at things realistically based upon what I know so far. Comments? Thanks.

Response:

You might want to go to our web site and read everything the "search function" turns up on "living aboard" and "live aboard". We lived aboard for years. You should have no problem with financing if you have a reasonable credit history but they may require up to 50% down at some banks and a lot don’t like boats because they are mobile. The good news is that you certainly wouldn’t need anything like 200 grand to get a good boat. A quick check through our co-broker’s listings shows a 62′ teak vessel for $80,000 for instance. There are abundant other vessels that would be eminently suitable. I would recommend the smallest boat you can be comfortable on if you plan to travel extensively by the way. The brokerage section of our web site under "yard" has a lot of information on how yacht brokerage works so you don’t get tripped up. Remember to get a boat independently surveyed before buying. If there’s anything I can do to help let me know. Tom MacNaughton http://www.macnaughtongroup.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The wife and I are giving serious consideration to purchasing a trawler as a liveaboard. However, this won’t occur for at least two years (waiting until the youngest graduates and gives us time to research). I’m reading everything I can get my hands on and asking tons of questions; but, I’m concerned about what we can really afford based upon the following: 1. We are a couple of "modest" means (less than six figures a year combined income). 2. We would have to sell the land home (could not afford to maintain both). 3. We recognize that new is out of the question (especially since we believe, at this point, 45 to 50 feet depending on layout to be sufficient). 4. It appears, at first blush, that financing for boats older than 15 years (maybe less) is a real pain or maybe not feasible at all (especially if the boat is wood as opposed to glass or steel/aluminum). 5. The 20% down could be done; but, on anything above 200K final selling price would also be out of the question (unless there is some "creative financing" I’m not currently aware of). 6. The asking price of what we’ve seen in the Pacific NW seems to be way out of line compared to the high retail average listed in the Powerboat Guide (even accounting for the 10 – 15% regional "markup"). I’m (hopefully) not trying to build barriers to actually making this happen. Just trying to look at things realistically based upon what I know so far. Comments? Thanks.

Response:

Question:

Since when did inventory appear in the P&L? Perhaps you refer to the Cost of goods sold account? but how can that be equal to the B/S inventory? Therefore you must mean a write-up situation  where you have Opening Inventory Plus Purchases Less Closing Inventory (this appearing on both P&L and B/S?) = Cost of goods sold Most accounting packages handle inventory dymanically, debiting inventory at the time of purchase and crediting it at time of sale (and simultaneously debiting cost of goods), therefore the COGS goes to the P&L and Inventory to the balance sheet. HS – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BZZZZZZZT! Either way is fine. If you debit Purchases, you have to close it out at the end of the year anyway. The end result is the same. Debiting Inventory is easier though. It’s not.  There are two trial balance inventory accounts – P&L inventory and BS inventory.  They should always be the same.  At the end of the year you merely journal in whatever is required to get them to equal physical stock, as follows: DR/CR  P&L inventory       X   CR/DR  BS inventory        X If you are suggesting that we journal amounts into either one of these accounts without doing the same to the other then you’re going to get into a pickle.  How will you journal in your closing stock at the end of the period?  You’re in great risk of getting in a situation that you won’t understand at the year end and you won’t be able to explain to your superiors/auditors. I repeat, debit purchases, credit accruals GRNI.  If you use a reversing journal then you don’t need to worry about closing it out (if I’m understanding you right). — "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it."                              (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish")

Response:

Since when did inventory appear in the P&L?

It always has done. Perhaps you refer to the Cost of goods sold account? but how can that be equal to the B/S inventory?

It doesn’t. Therefore you must mean a write-up situation  where you have Opening Inventory Plus Purchases Less Closing Inventory (this appearing on both P&L and B/S?) = Cost of goods sold

Dead right.  Did they teach you different? Most accounting packages handle inventory dymanically, debiting inventory at the time of purchase and crediting it at time of sale (and simultaneously debiting cost of goods), therefore the COGS goes to the P&L and Inventory to the balance sheet.

The danger with the scenario you describe is that people make elementary bookkeeping howlers like we’ve been seeing here because they’re led to make shortcuts by their systems.  If your system fails or you have to do anything out of the ordinary then you’re in big trouble.  You really can’t beat a solid grounding in double entry.  My tuppence worth. — "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it."                               (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish")

Response:

Since when did inventory appear in the P&L? It always has done.

        I personally have never worked for a company that has done it this way. When I was in public practice, we never did it this way either. I find it completely unnecessary. Most accounting packages handle inventory dymanically, debiting inventory at the time of purchase and crediting it at time of sale (and simultaneously debiting cost of goods), therefore the COGS goes to the P&L and Inventory to the balance sheet. The danger with the scenario you describe is that people make elementary bookkeeping howlers like we’ve been seeing here because they’re led to make shortcuts by their systems.  If your system fails or you have to do anything out of the ordinary then you’re in big trouble.  You really can’t beat a solid grounding in double entry.  My tuppence worth.

        Debiting Inventory instead of Purchases is a shortcut. If someone doesn’t understand how this works, they obviously shouldn’t do it this way. "Everything should be made as simple  as possible, but not simpler."                                 – Albert Einstein      

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BZZZZZZZT! Either way is fine. If you debit Purchases, you have to close it out at the end of the year anyway. The end result is the same. Debiting Inventory is easier though. It’s not.  There are two trial balance inventory accounts – P&L inventory and BS inventory.  They should always be the same.  At the end of the year you merely journal in whatever is required to get them to equal physical stock, as follows: DR/CR  P&L inventory       X   CR/DR  BS inventory        X If you are suggesting that we journal amounts into either one of these accounts without doing the same to the other then you’re going to get into a pickle.  How will you journal in your closing stock at the end of the period?  You’re in great risk of getting in a situation that you won’t understand at the year end and you won’t be able to explain to your superiors/auditors. I repeat, debit purchases, credit accruals GRNI.  If you use a reversing journal then you don’t need to worry about closing it out (if I’m understanding you right).

Assume: Beginning Inventory = 30,000 Purchases = 200,000 Ending Inventory = 26,000 Therefore: Cost of Goods Sold = Beg. Inv. + Purchases – End. Inv. COGS = 30,000 + 200,000 – 26,000 COGS = 204,000 Your way: 1) Purchases                            200,000         Accounts Payable                        200,000 To record purchase of merchandise. 2) Cost of Goods Sold                   4,000         Inventory                               4,000 To adjust inventory to ending balance. 3) Cost of Goods Sold                   200,000         Purchases                               200,000 To close out purchases account against COGS. Therefore, COGS = 4,000 + 200,000 = 204,000 Inventory = 30,000 – 4,000 = 26,000 My way: 1) Inventory                            200,000         Accounts Payable                        200,000 To record purchase of merchandise. 2) Cost of Goods Sold                   204,000         Inventory                               204,000 To adjust inventory to ending balance. Therefore, COGS = 204,000 Inventory = 30,000 + 200,000 – 204,000 = 26,000 The results are the same. "Everything should be made as simple  as possible, but not simpler."                                 – Albert Einstein      

Response:

That would be easy ! Use the "Goods In Trasit" Account

Response:

Could somebody tell me how to correct the following error. At the end of the year physical inventory reflects goods that have been received. The invoice however was not received and not entered during the same fiscal year. What accounts do you use to make correction? Thank you for your help

Per GAAP, whoever is in possession of goods has the title to them. therefore, even if you have not received the invoice for the goods already included in your physical inventory, you need to make accrual for its costs. Normally, this is the pro-forma entries:         Purchases                               xxxx                 Accounts payable                        xxxx If you have further questions, please forward your message to me at my dennis

Response:

BZZZZZZZT! Either way is fine. If you debit Purchases, you have to close it out at the end of the year anyway. The end result is the same. Debiting Inventory is easier though.

It’s not.  There are two trial balance inventory accounts – P&L inventory and BS inventory.  They should always be the same.  At the end of the year you merely journal in whatever is required to get them to equal physical stock, as follows: DR/CR  P&L inventory       X    CR/DR  BS inventory        X If you are suggesting that we journal amounts into either one of these accounts without doing the same to the other then you’re going to get into a pickle.  How will you journal in your closing stock at the end of the period?  You’re in great risk of getting in a situation that you won’t understand at the year end and you won’t be able to explain to your superiors/auditors. I repeat, debit purchases, credit accruals GRNI.  If you use a reversing journal then you don’t need to worry about closing it out (if I’m understanding you right). — "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it."                               (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish")

Response:

Debit Inventory Credit Accrues Accounts Payable BZZZZZZT! inventory isn’t part of the double entry system.  Sorry.  You meant purchases.

BZZZZZZZT! Either way is fine. If you debit Purchases, you have to close it out at the end of the year anyway. The end result is the same. Debiting Inventory is easier though. "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."                                                 – Albert Einstein      

Response:

: Debit Inventory : Credit Accrues Accounts Payable : : : BZZZZZZT! : : inventory isn’t part of the double entry system.  Sorry.  You meant : purchases. : : — : "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But : don’t be a God-damned sneak about it." :                               (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish") : It depends if they are using a perpetual system or not… IF they are using perpetual system and thus DR Inventory and CR A/P on purchases and  then on sales they make the following two entries:  DR A/R CR Sales and  DR Cost of Goods Sold CR Inventory….   So in this situation if they are on a perpetual system they need to accrue for inventory and then reverse the entry in the subsequent year when they enter the actual invoice into the system.

Response:

Debit Inventory Credit Accrues Accounts Payable – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Could somebody tell me how to correct the following error. At the end of the year physical inventory reflects goods that have been received. The invoice however was not received and not entered during the same fiscal year. What accounts do you use to make correction? Thank you for your help

Response:

Debit Inventory Credit Accrues Accounts Payable

BZZZZZZT! inventory isn’t part of the double entry system.  Sorry.  You meant purchases. — "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it."                               (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish")

Response:

Could somebody tell me how to correct the following error. At the end of the year physical inventory reflects goods that have been received. The invoice however was not received and not entered during the same fiscal year. What accounts do you use to make correction? Thank you for your help

Response:

Could somebody tell me how to correct the following error. At the end of the year physical inventory reflects goods that have been received. The invoice however was not received and not entered during the same fiscal year. What accounts do you use to make correction? Thank you for your help

debit purchases credit creditors (GRNI accrual) that way you get COS right. — "If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man.  "But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it."                               (from "A Perfect Day for Bananafish")

Response:

What happened when you counted the inventory and found it differed from your books (because you didn’t have the invoice)??? If the terms of the invoice state that the goods belonged to you at 12/31, then you should accrue the invoice in A/P or accrued expenses.  Then you should debit inventory or, if the inventory has already been adjusted to the physical count (which included the goods in question), then cost of goods sold. : Could somebody tell me how to correct the following error. : : At the end of the year physical inventory reflects goods that have been : received. The invoice however was not received and not entered during the : same fiscal year. What accounts do you use to make correction? : : Thank you for your help : : :

Response: