Question:

: The Washington Times opines on Fuckface’s real feelings about high gas : prices: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040524-090323-6885r.htm : :     While scoring a few rhetorical points by demagoging the price of :     gasoline, John Kerry, the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee, :     has offered no serious policy proposals to resolve current energy :     problems. In fact, we rather doubt that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by :     high gasoline prices. Like all excessively green thinkers, deep in his :     heart he loves sky-high fossil-fuel prices. Were there no political :     payoff to be pocketed by boisterously exploiting the current run-up in :     gasoline prices, Mr. Kerry – if his past is any guide – keyword  * if * :  would be :     silently welcoming the upward trend.  Like Bush and Cheny?  that *really* sux : : And the writer then shows exactly why Fuckface, as usual, is lying through : his teeth.  better than out his ass like the alternative : It’s worth the read.  : : From http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php?id=P3041 : : — : Greg : :

Response:

The Washington Times

= bullshit, as proven by… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"we rather doubt that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by high gasoline prices. "

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Washington Times opines on Fuckface’s real feelings about high gas prices: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040524-090323-6885r.htm    While scoring a few rhetorical points by demagoging the price of    gasoline, John Kerry, the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee,    has offered no serious policy proposals to resolve current energy    problems. In fact, we rather doubt that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by    high gasoline prices. Like all excessively green thinkers, deep in his    heart he loves sky-high fossil-fuel prices. Were there no political    payoff to be pocketed by boisterously exploiting the current run-up in    gasoline prices, Mr. Kerry – if his past is any guide – would be    silently welcoming the upward trend. And the writer then shows exactly why Fuckface, as usual, is lying through his teeth.

Isn’t Kerry the one that was advocating an additional 50 cents tax per gallon back when gas was oh, about 50 cents a gallon cheaper? Ron – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -It’s worth the read. From http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php?id=P3041

Response:

get a fucking life already, sheesh

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Washington Times opines on Fuckface’s real feelings about high gas prices: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040524-090323-6885r.htm    While scoring a few rhetorical points by demagoging the price of    gasoline, John Kerry, the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee,    has offered no serious policy proposals to resolve current energy    problems. In fact, we rather doubt that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by    high gasoline prices. Like all excessively green thinkers, deep in his    heart he loves sky-high fossil-fuel prices. Were there no political    payoff to be pocketed by boisterously exploiting the current run-up in    gasoline prices, Mr. Kerry – if his past is any guide – would be    silently welcoming the upward trend. And the writer then shows exactly why Fuckface, as usual, is lying through his teeth. Isn’t Kerry the one that was advocating an additional 50 cents tax per gallon back when gas was oh, about 50 cents a gallon cheaper?

Taxing gas makes sense… just as other addictive substances are generally taxed heavily (alchohol, tobacco, etc).  It would be one way to force people to start conserving and to force the building of more efficient and cleaner vehicles.  Would help with the environment.  One philosophy about taxes is to tax whatever you want to discourage. Certainly the wasteful and polluting use of fossil fuels could fall under that category. Of course the one thing it wouldn’t help would be oil company profits.

Response:

Taxing gas and oil company gouging are two different topics.  Oil company profits are at record highs at the moment. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Washington Times opines on Fuckface’s real feelings about high gas prices: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040524-090323-6885r.htm    While scoring a few rhetorical points by demagoging the price of    gasoline, John Kerry, the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee,    has offered no serious policy proposals to resolve current energy    problems. In fact, we rather doubt that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by    high gasoline prices. Like all excessively green thinkers, deep in his    heart he loves sky-high fossil-fuel prices. Were there no political    payoff to be pocketed by boisterously exploiting the current run-up in    gasoline prices, Mr. Kerry – if his past is any guide – would be    silently welcoming the upward trend. And the writer then shows exactly why Fuckface, as usual, is lying through his teeth. Isn’t Kerry the one that was advocating an additional 50 cents tax per gallon back when gas was oh, about 50 cents a gallon cheaper? Ron It’s worth the read. From http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php?id=P3041

Response:

Isn’t Kerry the one that was advocating an additional 50 cents tax per gallon back when gas was oh, about 50 cents a gallon cheaper?

Nope. You’ve got him confused with Dick Cheney who, as a congressman, advocated higher gas taxes.

Response:

    While scoring a few rhetorical points by demagoging the price of     gasoline, John Kerry, the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee,     has offered no serious policy proposals to resolve current energy     problems. In fact, we rather doubt that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by     high gasoline prices. Like all excessively green thinkers, deep in his     heart he loves sky-high fossil-fuel prices. Were there no political     payoff to be pocketed by boisterously exploiting the current run-up in     gasoline prices, Mr. Kerry – if his past is any guide – would be     silently welcoming the upward trend. And the writer then shows exactly why Fuckface, as usual, is lying through his teeth.

Do you concider gas prices to be a very important issue in this election? Tommy

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     While scoring a few rhetorical points by demagoging the price of     gasoline, John Kerry, the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee,     has offered no serious policy proposals to resolve current energy     problems. In fact, we rather doubt that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by     high gasoline prices. Like all excessively green thinkers, deep in his     heart he loves sky-high fossil-fuel prices. Were there no political     payoff to be pocketed by boisterously exploiting the current run-up in     gasoline prices, Mr. Kerry – if his past is any guide – would be     silently welcoming the upward trend. And the writer then shows exactly why Fuckface, as usual, is lying through his teeth. Do you concider gas prices to be a very important issue in this election? Tommy

I for one really don’t. Gasoline is still cheaper than bottled water here by half. And roughly half of that cost is tax, so IMO any politician that runs on that issue is at least somewhat hypocritical. Need cheaper gas….lower the taxes on it.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     While scoring a few rhetorical points by demagoging the price of     gasoline, John Kerry, the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee,     has offered no serious policy proposals to resolve current energy     problems. In fact, we rather doubt that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by     high gasoline prices. Like all excessively green thinkers, deep in his     heart he loves sky-high fossil-fuel prices. Were there no political     payoff to be pocketed by boisterously exploiting the current run-up in     gasoline prices, Mr. Kerry – if his past is any guide – would be     silently welcoming the upward trend. And the writer then shows exactly why Fuckface, as usual, is lying through his teeth. Do you concider gas prices to be a very important issue in this election? Tommy I for one really don’t. Gasoline is still cheaper than bottled water here by half. And roughly half of that cost is tax, so IMO any politician that runs on that issue is at least somewhat hypocritical. Need cheaper gas….lower the taxes on it.

Accounting for inflation, we’ve been spoiled by "cheap gas" over the last few years.  Since my main car gets about 12 MPG, and my "fun" car burns premium, I hope we return to those days. As for whether gas prices are an election concern, I think they are.  It’s the rapid increase in price, along with the decision not to release any of the strategic reserve when we’re at record high levels of reserve that becomes the issue.  But if there wasn’t a war, there’s be less uncertainty and lower prices.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     While scoring a few rhetorical points by demagoging the price of     gasoline, John Kerry, the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee,     has offered no serious policy proposals to resolve current energy     problems. In fact, we rather doubt that Mr. Kerry is truly offended by     high gasoline prices. Like all excessively green thinkers, deep in his     heart he loves sky-high fossil-fuel prices. Were there no political     payoff to be pocketed by boisterously exploiting the current run-up in     gasoline prices, Mr. Kerry – if his past is any guide – would be     silently welcoming the upward trend. And the writer then shows exactly why Fuckface, as usual, is lying through his teeth. Do you concider gas prices to be a very important issue in this election? Tommy I for one really don’t. Gasoline is still cheaper than bottled water here by half. And roughly half of that cost is tax, so IMO any politician that runs on that issue is at least somewhat hypocritical. Need cheaper gas….lower the taxes on it. Accounting for inflation, we’ve been spoiled by "cheap gas" over the last few years.  Since my main car gets about 12 MPG, and my "fun" car burns premium, I hope we return to those days. As for whether gas prices are an election concern, I think they are.  It’s the rapid increase in price, along with the decision not to release any of the strategic reserve when we’re at record high levels of reserve that becomes the issue.  But if there wasn’t a war, there’s be less uncertainty and lower prices.

The reserve exists against emergencies not as a buffer for prices. Given the present world, I think we should keep it topped off. Ron

Response:

The reserve exists against emergencies not as a buffer for prices. Given the present world, I think we should keep it topped off. Ron

Yeah, and find some place to put some extra. — Dr. Nuketopia Sorry, no e-Mail. Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

Response:

I for one really don’t. Gasoline is still cheaper than bottled water here by half. And roughly half of that cost is tax, so IMO any politician that runs on that issue is at least somewhat hypocritical. Need cheaper gas….lower the taxes on it.

But do we need cheaper gas? We pay about twice as much for gas compared to the US. and that makes people think twice before they buy a huge car, that burns much more gas than they really need. Let’s think about the future, and make sure that the gas lasts as long as possible, and that the environment don’t suffer more than necassery Tommy

Response:

Accounting for inflation, we’ve been spoiled by "cheap gas" over the last few years.  Since my main car gets about 12 MPG, and my "fun" car burns premium, I hope we return to those days.

Do you need a car that gets only 12 MPG? And do you really need a "fun" car? I think that’s what many people find kind of hilarious about America. The big issues in the election are usually about making sure that everyone can continue their care free, easy living, fun loving lifestyle. The bigger issues, don’t seem to concern the masses…. Seems the general voter thinks: "I don’t care about the environment, the poverty in my country or how they’re gonna get gas in the future, as long as I can drive around in my two huge cars, and sit by the pool relaxing.".. Tommy

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Accounting for inflation, we’ve been spoiled by "cheap gas" over the last few years.  Since my main car gets about 12 MPG, and my "fun" car burns premium, I hope we return to those days. Do you need a car that gets only 12 MPG? And do you really need a "fun" car? I think that’s what many people find kind of hilarious about America. The big issues in the election are usually about making sure that everyone can continue their care free, easy living, fun loving lifestyle. The bigger issues, don’t seem to concern the masses…. Seems the general voter thinks: "I don’t care about the environment, the poverty in my country or how they’re gonna get gas in the future, as long as I can drive around in my two huge cars, and sit by the pool relaxing."..

I’ll try explaining this. Everything we need to know about the state of the world’s oil reserve is displayed on the sign above the pump. When the stuff gets scarce the price will go up. When it becomes more expensive than alternatives we go to the alternatives. This is simple, common sense. Ron

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I for one really don’t. Gasoline is still cheaper than bottled water here by half. And roughly half of that cost is tax, so IMO any politician that runs on that issue is at least somewhat hypocritical. Need cheaper gas….lower the taxes on it. But do we need cheaper gas? We pay about twice as much for gas compared to the US. and that makes people think twice before they buy a huge car, that burns much more gas than they really need. Let’s think about the future, and make sure that the gas lasts as long as possible, and that the environment don’t suffer more than necassery

Why should we make the gas last as long as possible? Is it doing some good being under ground? If so please advise. If we were to follow your philosophy there’d be a strategic whale oil reserve and we’d be preserving that once necessary commodity. Instead we make the best use of available resources and exploit other, often newer resources when they make more sense. Ron

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I for one really don’t. Gasoline is still cheaper than bottled water here by half. And roughly half of that cost is tax, so IMO any politician that runs on that issue is at least somewhat hypocritical. Need cheaper gas….lower the taxes on it. But do we need cheaper gas? We pay about twice as much for gas compared to the US. and that makes people think twice before they buy a huge car, that burns much more gas than they really need. Let’s think about the future, and make sure that the gas lasts as long as possible, and that the environment don’t suffer more than necassery Why should we make the gas last as long as possible? Is it doing some good being under ground? If so please advise. If we were to follow your philosophy there’d be a strategic whale oil reserve and we’d be preserving that once necessary commodity. Instead we make the best use of available resources and exploit other, often newer resources when they make more sense.

Conservation makes sense, unless you are so selfish as to only think about your own immediate needs and want to ignore the problems you are creating in the future.  Maybe you don’t have any kids & so can’t relate to the concept of future generations.  In addition, practicing conservation would help keep oil demand and prices down… supply & demand.  Not to mention burning less is a huge plus for the environment… oh I forgot, conservatives don’t care about the environment.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Accounting for inflation, we’ve been spoiled by "cheap gas" over the last few years.  Since my main car gets about 12 MPG, and my "fun" car burns premium, I hope we return to those days. Do you need a car that gets only 12 MPG? And do you really need a "fun" car? I think that’s what many people find kind of hilarious about America. The big issues in the election are usually about making sure that everyone can continue their care free, easy living, fun loving lifestyle. The bigger issues, don’t seem to concern the masses…. Seems the general voter thinks: "I don’t care about the environment, the poverty in my country or how they’re gonna get gas in the future, as long as I can drive around in my two huge cars, and sit by the pool relaxing.".. I’ll try explaining this. Everything we need to know about the state of the world’s oil reserve is displayed on the sign above the pump. When the stuff gets scarce the price will go up.

duh. When it becomes more expensive than alternatives we go to the alternatives.

Why wait until then to start planning? — It’s stupidly shortsighted. We’ve seen this dependence on foriegn energy since the 70s, and have had a generation to prepare for it.  Since Reagan to the present we’ve done squat. This is simple, common sense.

It’s even more sensible to plan for the future by having a real energy policy… it would keep away sharp spikes in the price of oil that will continue to screw up the world’s economy.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Accounting for inflation, we’ve been spoiled by "cheap gas" over the last few years.  Since my main car gets about 12 MPG, and my "fun" car burns premium, I hope we return to those days. Do you need a car that gets only 12 MPG? And do you really need a "fun" car? I think that’s what many people find kind of hilarious about America. The big issues in the election are usually about making sure that everyone can continue their care free, easy living, fun loving lifestyle. The bigger issues, don’t seem to concern the masses…. Seems the general voter thinks: "I don’t care about the environment, the poverty in my country or how they’re gonna get gas in the future, as long as I can drive around in my two huge cars, and sit by the pool relaxing.".. I’ll try explaining this. Everything we need to know about the state of the world’s oil reserve is displayed on the sign above the pump. When the stuff gets scarce the price will go up. When it becomes more expensive than alternatives we go to the alternatives. This is simple, common sense.

Common sense to wait until it’s too late? Why wait for oil to get scarce? So the oil men in the whitey house and their corporate fiendish friends can rape the shit out of everybody with sky fucking high prices just before it gets completely depleted? What’s wrong with NOW doing some R&D for *non-polluting* alternatives? You know MoeRonic, it’s twerps with your banal and anal mentality who love to wallow in stagnant stubborness and do your damnest to prevent anything progressive from taking place. If only you unelvolved, untranscended simians would just fucking die off, maybe some progress for the betterment of ALL humankind could be developed. Fuck off, ape! KABONG!~!~!~

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I for one really don’t. Gasoline is still cheaper than bottled water here by half. And roughly half of that cost is tax, so IMO any politician that runs on that issue is at least somewhat hypocritical. Need cheaper gas….lower the taxes on it. But do we need cheaper gas? We pay about twice as much for gas compared to the US. and that makes people think twice before they buy a huge car, that burns much more gas than they really need. Let’s think about the future, and make sure that the gas lasts as long as possible, and that the environment don’t suffer more than necassery Why should we make the gas last as long as possible? Is it doing some good being under ground? If so please advise.

You absolutely have no idea why that dinosaur juice was there to begin with or what could happen to the Earth once it’s completely depleted. It could be there for reasons no one would ever know even if far-fetched. The results could be disastrous, you don’t know. Then again, maybe there will not be any after-effects, but you don’t know that either. But to blindly consume some natural resource to depletion without analyzing possible outcomes sounds stupid and irresponsible to me. If we were to follow your philosophy there’d be a strategic whale oil reserve and we’d be preserving that once necessary commodity. Instead we make the best use of available resources and exploit other, often newer resources when they make more sense.

Brilliant! No need to think like a conservationist, investigate any cause and effects of complete depletions of resources, make any attempts of inventing new efficient ways to use the present resources or develop new resources. Yep, let’s just go hog wild and eat it up, consume it up, pollute it out. Fuck it, who cares what the outcome may be, just as long as we can live our lives with veneered luxury and superficial opulence while the Earth turns to shit. Excellent ape-like thinking, MoRonic. KABONG!~!~!~

Response:

Accounting for inflation, we’ve been spoiled by "cheap gas" over the last few years.  Since my main car gets about 12 MPG, and my "fun" car burns premium, I hope we return to those days. Do you need a car that gets only 12 MPG?

Yes, unless you’d like to replace my old Mercedes with a new one that gets better mileage . And do you really need a "fun" car?

Most definitely! I think that’s what many people find kind of hilarious about America. The big issues in the election are usually about making sure that everyone can continue their care free, easy living, fun loving lifestyle. The bigger issues, don’t seem to concern the masses…. Seems the general voter thinks: "I don’t care about the environment, the poverty in my country or how they’re gonna get gas in the future, as long as I can drive around in my two huge cars, and sit by the pool relaxing.".. Tommy

Tommy, I do care about the environment, but the fact of the matter is that I drive MUCH less than the average driver.  My office is about 2 miles away.  My car is very clean burning.  I pollute MUCH less, and burn MUCH less gas than your average driver.

Response:

I’ll try explaining this. Everything we need to know about the state of the world’s oil reserve is displayed on the sign above the pump. When the stuff gets scarce the price will go up. When it becomes more expensive than alternatives we go to the alternatives. This is simple, common sense.

Tax on gas does not always have anything to do with the state of the oil reserve. Higher taxes makes people drive less, and drive cars that don’t drink so much gas. That’s a good thing, isn’t it? Tommy

Response:

Tommy, I do care about the environment, but the fact of the matter is that I drive MUCH less than the average driver.  My office is about 2 miles away. My car is very clean burning.  I pollute MUCH less, and burn MUCH less gas than your average driver.

You DRIVE 2 miles to work? Don’t you have a bike, or legs? You just proved my point… Tommy

Response:

Why should we make the gas last as long as possible? Is it doing some good being under ground? If so please advise.

Because having oil under ground, makes it last longer! And when it lasts longer, future generations (yes, there will be generations after this) will be able to use gas and oil. If we were to follow your philosophy there’d be a strategic whale oil reserve and we’d be preserving that once necessary commodity. Instead we make the best use of available resources and exploit other, often newer resources when they make more sense.

We have a whale oil reserve. We make sure we don’t kill too many whales, so that they disapears from the earth. But there is one big difference between whales and mineral oil. Whales takes a few years to "renew", while oil takes millions of years to make, and that makes it a non-renewable recource. By the way: Why keep money in the bank? Why not just spend it all today? Tommy

Response:

I’ll try explaining this. Everything we need to know about the state of the world’s oil reserve is displayed on the sign above the pump. When the stuff gets scarce the price will go up. When it becomes more expensive than alternatives we go to the alternatives. This is simple, common sense.

We’re at least partly in agreement here, for once, Ron. But I’d like to clarify a little: Some of what we need to know about the state of the world’s oil reserves is indicated by the price above the pump, which reflects general understanding about current levels of delivery, how much they cost to maintain, and how long they can be sustained. However, given that that general understanding might shift very rapidly – with very serious consequences for industrialized society – we might want to know a little more than that…. We will start looking at alternatives when the prices start going up. However, the amount of time required to build alternative solutions to avoid a major breakdown in industrial society may be much higher than we then have available. Also, given that it will require energy to build those alternative systems, the rising price of oil may serve to price out implementing those alternatives as they become desirable. What a bummer that would be!

Response:

Question:

 Hi there.     I am using Simply Accounting 2003 . I am using Microsoft XP version 2002. How do I make a copy of my records to a floppy disc that would be readable to a different computer (using the same software) running windows milenuim , XP or any other windows 98+ compatable software ?     For that matter…I can’t even get my own computer to read discs that I have attempted to make from this computer.    TIA for any suggestions…I would gladly answer any additional questions that would be required to make this work….regards……jim

Response:

You have to copy the TWO files in your data directory with the same name. If you only copy the one, you will have a non-functional file and no computer will read the data. Stephanie

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi there.     I am using Simply Accounting 2003 . I am using Microsoft XP version 2002. How do I make a copy of my records to a floppy disc that would be readable to a different computer (using the same software) running windows milenuim , XP or any other windows 98+ compatable software ?     For that matter…I can’t even get my own computer to read discs that I have attempted to make from this computer.    TIA for any suggestions…I would gladly answer any additional questions that would be required to make this work….regards……jim

Response:

Thanks Steph….but can that be put into ’step by step laymans terms?’…I am a tradesman and computer challanged….I keep good books…but when it comes to this I am sort of handicapped….Could you use the terms like "’Go here and click on this’ and the "once you are there click on this and choose this tab"… This is the kind of help I am looking for…will print what you wrote for reference though….Thanks…….Jim

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You have to copy the TWO files in your data directory with the same name. If you only copy the one, you will have a non-functional file and no computer will read the data. Stephanie Hi there.     I am using Simply Accounting 2003 . I am using Microsoft XP version 2002. How do I make a copy of my records to a floppy disc that would be readable to a different computer (using the same software) running windows milenuim , XP or any other windows 98+ compatable software ?     For that matter…I can’t even get my own computer to read discs that I have attempted to make from this computer.    TIA for any suggestions…I would gladly answer any additional questions that would be required to make this work….regards……jim

Response:

   I am using Simply Accounting 2003 . I am using Microsoft XP version 2002. How do I make a copy of my records to a floppy disc that would be readable to a different computer (using the same software) running windows milenuim , XP or any other windows 98+ compatable software ?

What is a floppy?  Oh yeah…. I remember  those ancient things. I wouldn’t bother with floppys they are too small.  I would suggest getting a 750 meg zip drive, a USB device, or burn a CD.   "Finally a member of the Jackson family finds another young boy to victimize."                          referring to Justin                          Timberlake To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address.     —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Thanks Steph….but can that be put into ’step by step laymans terms?’…I am a tradesman and computer challanged….I keep good books…but when it comes to this I am sort of handicapped….Could you use the terms like "’Go here and click on this’ and the "once you are there click on this and choose this tab"… This is the kind of help I am looking for…will print what you wrote for reference though….Thanks…….Jim

The best way to do it is go into that directory and copy every file that was changed since the last backup.   "Finally a member of the Jackson family finds another young boy to victimize."                          referring to Justin                          Timberlake To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address.     —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

I wouldn’t bother with floppys they are too small.  I would suggest getting a 750 meg zip drive, a USB device, or burn a CD.   Or use the new device that is the size of your thumb, functions as a hard drive, and plugs into a USB drive.

" A USB device" "Finally a member of the Jackson family finds another young boy to victimize."                          referring to Justin                          Timberlake To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from my e-mail address.     —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Question:

  I’m planning a trip for a class a Asbury Seminary next June, going tentatively from ONT to LEX.  About the cheapest fare I’ve found that meets m needs is $404.00 on UAL ($410).  I’m wondering, however, if waiting to book a while might get me a lower price (the school is paying for the flight and every dollar I can save them, so much the better). Any suggestions?

Response:

I’m planning a trip for a class a Asbury Seminary next June, going tentatively from ONT to LEX.  About the cheapest fare I’ve found that meets m needs is $404.00 on UAL ($410).  I’m wondering, however, if waiting to book a while might get me a lower price (the school is paying for the flight and every dollar I can save them, so much the better). Any suggestions?

Lexington is a smallish, but wonderful, town.  It has a small airport and thus high prices.  Its the kind of place where you fly to a major airport, and then catch a prop or "regional jet" into there.  That last hop is the killer. Consider flying into Cincinnati or Louisville.  Cincy is a Delta hub and has direct flights to any and every where.  Louisville is dominated by lots of low price carriers, including Frontier and Southwest.

Response:

Consider flying into Cincinnati or Louisville.  Cincy is a Delta hub and has direct flights to any and every where.  Louisville is dominated by lots of low price carriers, including Frontier and Southwest.

A few years ago Lexington was a real bargain compared to Cincinnati. I don’t remember the exact numbers but flying from SFO to LEX with a plane change in CIN each way was around $400 mid week and if I had just flown SFO-CIN and return it was something like $2000. Don’t give up on LEX yet.

Response:

Consider flying into Cincinnati or Louisville.  Cincy is a Delta hub and has direct flights to any and every where.  Louisville is dominated by lots of low price carriers, including Frontier and Southwest. A few years ago Lexington was a real bargain compared to Cincinnati. I don’t remember the exact numbers but flying from SFO to LEX with a plane change in CIN each way was around $400 mid week and if I had just flown SFO-CIN and return it was something like $2000. Don’t give up on LEX yet.

The same was true of Dayton, one of those really odd airline accounting quirks.

Response:

I’m planning a trip … from ONT to LEX.   Lexington is a smallish, but wonderful, town.  It has a small airport and thus high prices.  Its the kind of place where you fly to a major airport, and then catch a prop or "regional jet" into there.  That last hop is the killer. Consider flying into Cincinnati or Louisville.  Cincy is a Delta hub and has direct flights to any and every where.

including regional jets to Lexington that take 18 minutes in the air. that is not bad at all.  the price to Cincinnati is often more than the price to Lexington, so check it out. Louisville is dominated by lots of low price carriers, including Frontier and Southwest.

this is true, but do you want to rent a car and drive 80-90 miles to Lexington from Louisville? do some comparison shopping at Expedia or Travelocity.  then hit the airline websites.  both Delta (from Cincinnati) and United (from Chicago) have convenient jet flights into Lexington.  US Air, Northwestern, and Continental also serve Lexington, but their flights are not as pleasant.

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In alt.religion.christian  I read this message from Ted Holden [snip] Stephen Gould, Eldredge, Mayr, and others have all been quoted to the effect that there are no real intermediate forms. Alexander Mebane (of Tampa Bay skeptics) notes wrt Gould’s explaination for this: This is a beautiful bit of lying by misdirection. Sure, they have been *quoted* to that effect. And they also have made it clear they were *misquoted*… Translation into plain English:  They don’t like the idea that anybody actually read the stuff…

Ted, if we can find that you lied about something as easily checked as this: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1988640608d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U… How can you expect to be counted on to tell the truth about anything else?

Response:

….To maintain that god created everything (including renegade alleles) and then, to utter the absurd notion that the design is godly and perfect is absolutely preposterous.   That’s entirely correct.  The only rational interpretation of the situation, given the proven fact that evolution is a bunch of bullshit,

< snip But Ted, why is it that when I ask you WHY and ask for reasonable alternatives, you run from the discussion? Is "evolution is a bunch of bullshit" REALLY the best you can do? Or is it really that if we can find that you lied about something as easily checked as this: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1988640608d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=U… You cannot be counted on to tell the truth about anything else?

Response:

The agonizing deaths of millions caused by faulty genes is all the witness one needs to evaluate the grand design theory.  To maintain that god created everything (including renegade alleles) and then, to utter the absurd notion that the design is godly and perfect is absolutely preposterous.  Where does this ignorance come from?

You know, I’ve been asking myself that same question for years and I still don’t have a solid answer, nor have I found anyone who could answer that. If we could really understand them, we could really help them out from under their delusions. This I do know: children learn what they live. In America, children are lied to from the time they are first able to listen and understand to the "age of reason". They are lied about the existence of a Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. All of society thinks this is just "having fun" with their children and they see no harm in it. Then as the children get older and begin to reason for themselves, they learn that society has lied to them all their lives and society thinks there is nothing wrong with doing that. So what have the children learned?   That it is okay to deceive others by making up stories, as long as it is done   for amusement. When the adults figure out that there is no more use trying to "have fun" by lying to their children about those "harmless" make believe entities, they replace one fairytale with yet another — the existence of gawd, that you can never ever hear, see, touch, smell, taste, or feel but you must give your money to him via a "representative". And if you don’t "freely choose" to blindly believe in the existence of gawd, you will be tortured in Hell (gawd’s son’s version of Hitler’s ovens). There are just as many versions of gawd and his son as there are people. So what have the children learned?   That is is okay to deceive yourself by making up a religion, as long as it is   done to make money or manipulate others The Sage My Home Page      :           http://members.cox.net/the.sage "Don’t part with your illusions. When they are gone you still exist, but you have cease to live" — Mark Twain

Response:

 THE TRANSISTIONAL FOSSILS FAQ by Kathleen Hunt lists hundreds of  transistions between kinds. A *small* sampling from the FAQ: The talk.origins transitional fossil FAQ is basically a big, stupid lie,

Just because you say so, eh? Wrong! Your mere say so isn’t going to erase the rock solid evidence of hundreds of fossils. Please try again until you get it right. regardless of how impressive it might look on first glance. What they have is a collection of oddities, each with its own special little story, sort of like the freak show at the carnival.

They are life forms that just so happen to fit *exactly* inbetween the place where they would be expected to fit if they were to be considered transistional life forms. They have the right size, shape, age,…everything. That doesn’t make them odd, that makes them blatent in your face proof that transistional lifeforms do exist. The only freak show here is the one given by ignorant believers like yourself, who oddly believe it is wrong to lie and deceive, yet dishonestly dismiss facts with blind faith assertions. Get a clue for once! And while we are at it, let’s see just how credible your "intelligent design" belief is… The best that your mythical God could do to demonstrate He created the universe was to dedicate two chapters in an ancient textbook filled with contradictions and inaccuracies. In the meantime, your mythical Satan left no stone unturned in his mad effort to hide the evidence of this alleged creation. Your Satan obviously did a better job at his re-creation then your God did at his creation. Laughbly, your Satan must be not only more intelligent than God, he must also be more powerful. The evidence of the existence of God from the poorly thought out argument of "intelligent" design is a ridiculous argument that goes nowhere when you sit down and really look at what is being said. Look at the established and proven theory behind a Rorschach test. A psychologist asks his client to interpret what they think they see in a random blotch of smeared ink. It isn’t that there is any design in the random blotch of smeared ink, but rather it is their interpretation of whatever design they think they see in it. It is a subjective test and has no meaning outside of what the person thinks they see in the inkblot. Likewise, christians look up at that big inkblot in the sky and think they see design in it when what they are really doing is interpreting what they think they see in it (or what they wish they could see in it). A design is simply a perceived pattern.  Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is art and so are perceived designs (read: patterns). So this brings up many bad points about the argument of design.  For one thing, to say we think we can see any design in the universe does not prove that it is designed. Another thing is that although we might see design in it, that would not prove purpose or intelligence behind the design since it might be an accidental design and not an intentional design. The only way to prove that the universe was purposely designed is to prove authorship of the universe, and no one has been able to even come close to doing that yet, despite christians (and other religious types) having over 5,000 years of written history to prove that it has been. Even if Christians could finally prove that God exists from argument by design, they would then have to explain why the most intelligent being in all the universe was such a poor designer. The Sage My Home Page      :           http://members.cox.net/the.sage "Don’t part with your illusions. When they are gone you still exist, but you have cease to live" — Mark Twain

Response:

….To maintain that god created everything (including renegade alleles) and then, to utter the absurd notion that the design is godly and perfect is absolutely preposterous.  

That’s entirely correct.  The only rational interpretation of the situation, given the proven fact that evolution is a bunch of bullshit, as I see it is the following: We observe a complex biosphere around us which could not plausibly have originated via random processes.  The chief artifacts of our own civilization are mechanical and electronic and electrical things;  the chief artifacts of some previous civilization are the complex life forms we observe around us.  Moreover, it is clearly not all the work of a single set of hands or a single intellect.  A loving God did not create biting flies, chiggers, ticks, lamprays, or disease organisms;  whoever created all that shit was some sort of an asshole.   Somebody we COULD admire, if not worship, did create humans, cats, dogs, horses, honeybees, birds, and every sort of reasonable thing in our world. That’s all we really know;  almost everything else is conjecture.   From all evidence there is a spiritual world, but in our own age of the world we are strongly separated from it and have little if any ability to communicate with it, and whatever power God and others of the spirit world might have within their own domain, their powers within our own physical world are severely limited. The old testament of the bible is basically in two parts, i.e. Genesis, the story of the world before the flood, and the other books which describe the history of Israel.  In the later books of the OT and in ancient literature generally, religious practices largely amounted to attempts to communicate directly with the spirit world the way Joan of Arc claimed to do.   Prophets, oracles, divination, and idolatry all were forms of such attempts. The word "prophet" which totally permiates the later books of the OT, however, is found only once in Genesis, after the flood, in a vague reference to Abraham as God’s prophet.  Somebody who didn’t know any better would take that to mean that things like oracles and prophets WERE NOT NEEDED before the flood, i.e. that communication with the spirit world was originally direct and simple, requiring no magic or complex rituals. The basic reality appears to be that for the time being, at least, we have a communications problem here, and as Jesus noted, we pretty much have to deal with the future world via faith. Richard Heinberg’s "Paradise" is one attempt to tell some of this story: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0874775159/102-8238045-… My own basic take resides at: http://www.bearfabrique.org/babel.html Ted Holden www.bearfabrique.org                     . .                     , ,                  ____)/                     (____                                  ,-’       ,’  |         _     _       /  |  `-.      `-.    ,’         /    |   `._   /\   //   _,’   |            `.               |          |      `.    `-( ,\_//  )-’    .’       |         |  |/’        ’        `(      (_)/      )/’        `/        `|  `                      `       V V       ‘                      ’ Splifford the bat says:  Always remember A mind is a terrible thing to waste;  especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines.

Response:

In alt.religion.christian  I read this message from Ted Holden [snip] Stephen Gould, Eldredge, Mayr, and others have all been quoted to the effect that there are no real intermediate forms. Alexander Mebane (of Tampa Bay skeptics) notes wrt Gould’s explaination for this:

This is a beautiful bit of lying by misdirection. Sure, they have been *quoted* to that effect. And they also have made it clear they were *misquoted*. Ted uses creationists distortions, knowing they are distortions, as evidence. [snip]

Response:

In alt.religion.christian  I read this message from Ted Holden [snip] Stephen Gould, Eldredge, Mayr, and others have all been quoted to the effect that there are no real intermediate forms. Alexander Mebane (of Tampa Bay skeptics) notes wrt Gould’s explaination for this: This is a beautiful bit of lying by misdirection. Sure, they have been *quoted* to that effect. And they also have made it clear they were *misquoted*…

Translation into plain English:  They don’t like the idea that anybody actually read the stuff… Ted Holden www.bearfabrique.org                     . .                     , ,                  ____)/                     (____                                  ,-’       ,’  |         _     _       /  |  `-.      `-.    ,’         /    |   `._   /\   //   _,’   |            `.               |          |      `.    `-( ,\_//  )-’    .’       |         |  |/’        ’        `(      (_)/      )/’        `/        `|  `                      `       V V       ‘                      ’ Splifford the bat says:  Always remember A mind is a terrible thing to waste;  especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines.

Response:

In alt.religion.christian  I read this message from Ted Holden – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In alt.religion.christian  I read this message from Ted Holden [snip] Stephen Gould, Eldredge, Mayr, and others have all been quoted to the effect that there are no real intermediate forms. Alexander Mebane (of Tampa Bay skeptics) notes wrt Gould’s explaination for this: This is a beautiful bit of lying by misdirection. Sure, they have been *quoted* to that effect. And they also have made it clear they were *misquoted*… Translation into plain English:  They don’t like the idea that anybody actually read the stuff…

Actually I do like that people read the stuff. Why don’t you give us the full references to where Gould, et. al. said there were no "real intermediate forms". Don’t give just an out of context quote. If you give a quote, give enough material to see the full context. And give the full reference so people can read what they wrote.

Response:

   THE TRANSISTIONAL FOSSILS FAQ by Kathleen Hunt lists hundreds of    transistions between kinds. A *small* sampling from the FAQ: [ Kathleen and Mike hunt BS omitted...]

The talk.origins transitional fossil FAQ is basically a big, stupid lie, regardless of how impressive it might look on first glance. What they have is a collection of oddities, each with its own special little story, sort of like the freak show at the carnival. Evolutionists have been combing the world frantically for intermediate form fossils for over 100 years now, and that’s all they’ve got; that’s nothing. Evolution requires that the vast bulk of all fossils should be intermediate forms. Every intelligent statement I have ever read on the subject refers to the lack of intermediate fossils as a major problem for evolution. The only exception to this I have ever seen is the talk.origins FAQ. Stephen Gould, Eldredge, Mayr, and others have all been quoted to the effect that there are no real intermediate forms. Alexander Mebane (of Tampa Bay skeptics) notes wrt Gould’s explaination for this: But it may be questioned, on obvious probability grounds, whether this way of accounting for the observed absence of intermediates will really wash. Admitting that every intermediate stage "must have" a small population, we may nevertheless observe that there must have been a far greater number of them than of the stable, " finished" species known to us, since (according to the Darwinist picture) every species-transition must necessarily pass through several intermediate stages. That greater number would increase the likelihood that some intermediate forms, here and there, would chance to be preserved as fossils. And the dogma further requires that the larger transitions – between different genera, families, orders, classes, and even different phyla, must all have come about in just the same gradual and continuous manner, simply by a long- continued succession of normal species-transitions! We have all seen "genealogical trees" drawn by evolutionists, to show the order in which these taxonomic groups have all come into existence over a long period, by successive "branchings from a common root". But it must be asked: Where are all the fossils that should have been left by the many millions of species that this tree requires to have once existed on its trunk, boughs, and branches, before its final branchings took place? Why are none of these seen in the fossil record of the period during which the evolutionists’ tree requires them to have lived? (That this perhaps surprising charge does not exaggerate the real situation will be seen under "First Taxonomic Disconfirmation", where the explicitly contradicts Darwinian testimony of the "transformed cladists" will be presented.) Moreover, why have none of this great multitude of Darwinian intermediate species chanced to survive unchanged to our own time, among the considerable number of ancient life-forms that, as we know, have had the luck to do so? You may perhaps have read that that actually ts the case: the lungfishes, the monotremes (platypus) and the hoatzin, among others, were at one time said to show us "living fossils" of "primitive" life at a stage that was still intermediate to two different later forms, and ancestral to both of them. But those claims are no longer heard; for, on closer investigation, all of these creatures turned out to be curious "mosaic" constructions of a kind that could not rationally be seen as representing the real historical transitions between one group and another. (See Denton’s book for a detailed exposition of these cases.) The recent discovery’ of that living fossil par excellence, the coelacanth, was an exciting event for evolutionists, because these "lobe-finned" fish were supposed to have already begun to "evolve toward amphibians"; but when a well-preserved specimen was obtained, examination of its fins and its internal organs (previously unknown and only guessed-at) quashed that fond hope for some real confirmation of Darwin’s ideas, and I think that you will no longer find coelacanths called "pre-amphibians". Mebane’s statement wrt the platypus that "those claims are no longer heard; for, on closer investigation, all of these creatures turned out to be curious "mosaic" constructions of a kind that could not rationally be seen as representing the real historical transitions between one group and another. (See Denton’s book for a detailed exposition of these cases.)" should obviously be amended to read something like "…are no longer being heard from intelligent or honest people. Kathleen Hunt’s intermediate fossil faq reads: "Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end] This is what I mean in saying that the stuff you read in the talk.origins FAQ system is only being put out by lesser lights and dead wood; nobody with brains or talent who follows this stuff any more believes any of it. Mebane writes of the Cenozoic mammals: The most recent episode of great changes, the advent of the modern (Cenozoic) mammals after the death of the dinosaurs, is the one that we should expect to have left the best-preserved fossils of intermediate species. At the catastrophic end of the Cretaceous, 65 Myr ago, mammals were small nocturnal "tree-shrew"-like animals, none larger than cats; roughly ten million years later, we find essentially "modern" bats*, bears, and lions18. "All modern orders of mammals seem to have arisen independently and at about the same time": Wesson, p. 40, quoting Bonner 1988 and Carroll 1988. If these vast changes really proceeded in the manner prescribed by Darwin, surely many hundreds (at the least!) of intermediate species in each lineage must once have lived during that protracted period of radical transmogrification. None of them have ever showed up in the fossil record. And not only are all traces of intermediate species’ missing, but anyone who seriously tries to imagine a believable sequence of viable intermediate animals between a tree-shrew and a bat-every one of which, according to Darwin, supplanted its predecessor by virtue of being "better adapted"! -wiII very soon be convinced that such a sequence is simply inconceivable: "What use is half a wing?" as everyone since Mivart (including even Gould) has asked. The reason we have found no trace of them is simply that they never existed, and the reason they never existed is that it would be impossible for them to have done so. It was this unavoidable conclusion that led Simpson in 1944 20 to publicly acknowledge his heretical conviction that these megaevolutionary" transformations, at least, must have occurred in some rapid and entirely non-Darwinian way. For this he was censured, and forced to recant, but it is safe to assert that no one has ever been able to sketch out, with even the slightest semblance of credibility, any Darwinian route to the already-" modern" bats that appear-twice over! in the early Cenozoic, roughly 55 million years ago. There are in fact two distinct suborders of bats, the Microchiroptera and Megachiroptera, so pervasively different in structure that everyone agrees that they must have "evolved" quite independenty: Wesson, p.i82. Mebane notes the recent ambulatory "whale ancestor" finds which, whatever they do turn out to be, will certainly not turn out to be thousands of missing cenazoic links which evolution requires. Ted Holden www.bearfabrique.org                     . .                     , ,                  ____)/                     (____                                  ,-’       ,’  |         _     _       /  |  `-.      `-.    ,’         /    |   `._   /\   //   _,’   |            `.               |          |      `.    `-( ,\_//  )-’    .’       |         |  |/’        ’        `(      (_)/      )/’        `/        `|  `                      `       V V       ‘                      ’ Splifford the bat says:  Always remember A mind is a terrible thing to waste;  especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines.

Response:

The Consequences of Non-Materialistic Evolution (this is for all creationists) Certain arguments which appear constantly in religious publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed:   "Do you see? Men have a weapon against you. Reason. So you must be very sure   to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it. But be careful. Don’t   deny outright. Never deny anything outright, you give your hand away. Don’t   say that reason is evil — though some have gone that far and with astonishing   success. Just say that reason is limited. That there’s something above it.   What? You don’t have to be too clear about it either. The field’s   inexhaustible. ‘Instinct’ — ‘Feeling’ — ‘Revelation’ — ‘Divine Intuition’   — ‘Dialectic Materialism.’ If you get caught at some crucial point and   somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn’t make sense — you’re ready for   him. You tell him that there’s something above sense. That here he must not   try to think, he must *feel*. He must *believe*. Suspend reason and you play   it deuces wild…Can you rule a thinking man?  We don’t want any thinking men"   (Ayn Rand) Why does the doctrine of religion require such assurance? One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics. Is it because religious BELIEF does not qualify as a scientific theory at all? Below are some good examples: 1. No supernatural process which resulted in information forming in matter has    never been observed and never will. 2. Iknowhim, Ted Holden, and many other ignorant christians have been completely    and totally unable to refute the following facts about transistional fossils    and/or living life forms…    THE TRANSISTIONAL FOSSILS FAQ by Kathleen Hunt lists hundreds of transistions    between kinds. A *small* sampling from the FAQ:    TRANSITION FROM REPTILES TO MAMMALS:   *Pelycosaur synapsids — classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate    between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids    (see next)   *Therapsids (e.g. _Dimetrodon_) — the numerous therapsid fossils    show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian    features.  For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth    differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull    doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of    extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead    of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.   *Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. _Cynognathus_) — very mammal-like    reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals?  Highly differentiated    teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek    teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct    types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail    – very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian    digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But,    still has unmistakably *reptilian* jaw joint.   *Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. _Tritylodon_, _Bienotherium_) —    skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches).  Still    has reptilian jaw joint.   *Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. _Diarthrognathus_) — has all the    mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a *double* jaw    joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint    were present, side-by-side, in _Diarthrognathus_’s skull.  A really    stunning transitional fossil.   *Morganucodonts (e.g. _Morganucodon_) — early mammals.  Double jaw    joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint    bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the    bones of the middle ear).   *Eupantotheres (e.g. _Amphitherium_) — these mammals begin to show    the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials    and eutherians (placental mammals).  Mammalian jaw joint.   *Proteutherians (e.g. _Zalambdalestes_) — small, early    insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars    and modern eutherian molars. Those wondering how egg-laying    reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish    to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying    mammals) and the marsupials.  The monotremes in particular could    almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter    Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end] 3. The creation by intelligent design beleif devised by christians for    explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified    experimentally. And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a    theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted resurrected Jesus and "still living" god have never    been found outside of anyone’s imagination. It has also become clear from real scientific evidence and logic that creationism cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters. The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically and blindly, while the rock solid evidene of evolution is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is: They hate progress and wish to stagnate in a hate-filled religion. What progress has mankind made in the "spiritual world" as compared to what logic and reason have done in the last two thousand years? Scientists have been responsible for producing, IN THE LAST TWO CENTURIES ALONE, electric light and power, radio, television, atomics, the entire science of organic chemistry ranging from dyes to synthetic drugs, automobiles, airplanes — practically an entirely new civilization! And what has your religion done for mankind? Produce the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the 100-year War, the persecution of Galileo and Copernicus and other scientists, and so on and so on. Science can take (and is taking) the place of religion but religion cannot take the place of science. Without science we would all still be living in caves and believing that the earth has four corners. The Sage My Home Page      :           http://members.cox.net/the.sage "Don’t part with your illusions. When they are gone you still exist, but you have cease to live" — Mark Twain

Response:

In alt.religion.christian  I read this message from Ted Holden 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. "Kind" is an undefined term in science. Please provide a scientific definition, or please use known terms such as "species." "Kind" is a better word than "species", which evolutionists abuse. The concept is not difficult at all.  Kind means a particular kind of

animal, Is that definition recursive? with a specific set of organs, a specific basic plan for existance, and a specific requirement for interoperability of the specific organs for the purpose of following that basic plan.

So each animal is its own kind. Or do you know of some animal with a general set of organs, but no specific set. There is zero evidence on this planet that one kind of animal has ever changed into another via any process resembling evolution.

Great, how about a real definition of kind. By your definition all reproduction produces new kinds. Moreover, in most if not all cases, it is barely possible or demonstrably impossible to even visualize an evolutionary scenario for such a macroevolutionary change.

Ted, I find it hard to accept that there is anything you can’t imagine.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples:

    Actually they are trying to reassure people who are creationist. 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will.

    Cells work on physical and chemical processes. Crystals work on physical and chemical processes. Are you saying that crystals do not form automatically in nature. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute.

    Dogs are descended from wolves, wolves and foxes are both canines are you saying that dogs, foxes, and wolves are the same "kind". 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally.  And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms.

Modern Man with ape like features. Nature http://www.nature.com/nsu/030609/030609-8.html It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters.  The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him.

    Your poor example of spreading falsehoods and hatred does the most harm. Lane snip

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?

As opposed to, say, the creationists who have to sign pledges that they will never allow the physical evidence to sway them from their predetermined conclusions? (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp). One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.

Those are not "confessions of belief," but simple summations of the evidence. Are you seriously arguing that evolution must be wrong because biologists say it is correct? Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will.

On the contrary, mutation easily can increase through mutation coupled with selection. Here is one example of that: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute.

Evolution requires no such thing because "kind" is not a scientific term; it is a meaningless word invented by creationists and purposely left undefined. (After all, how can a scientist show a change from one "kind" to another when no creationists can even tell him what a kind is?) Evolution *does* require speciation events to occur, but they have been directly observed on numerous occasions. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally.

This has nothing to do with evolution. [...] 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms.

Transitional fossils *are* "complete, perfect" organisms. Only creationists who do not understand evolution think we should find fossils with abnormal, nonfunctional structures. Here is a post explaining that: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb03.html Contrary to the original poster’s vacuous assertions, transitional fossils are abundant. Here are some links: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_inter… It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters.

IKHDY has yet to understand that assertions do not equal arguments. Can he defend any of these ludicrous claims, or does he merely hope that if he makes them often enough they will stick? The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not?

So theistic evolutionists (including Protestant denominations such as the Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian churches – see http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2027_statements_from_religi…) hate God and want to destroy him. Such are the mind-numbing heights of absurdity that intolerant, hateful creationists will readily attain in their feverish attacks on science. — "We have loved the stars too fondly     | a.a. #2001 to be fearful of the night."            | http://www.ebonmusings.org –Tombstone epitaph of                  | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com   two amateur astronomers,              | ICQ: 8777843   quoted in Carl Sagan’s _Cosmos_       | PGP Key ID: 0×5C66F737

Response:

The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally.  And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters.  The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him. This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will.

False. Non-living matter is capable of complex behavior, for example, weather. Storm systems contain much more information than uniformly air. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute.

"Kind" is an undefined term in science. Please provide a scientific definition, or please use known terms such as "species." 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally.  And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality.

Abiogenesis is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. You know this, but keep repeating it. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.

False. Many transitional forms have been found. Indeed, all modern organisms are preceded by transitional organisms, including our own grandparents. All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms.

No organism is perfect. However, the Theory of Evolution requires that all forms be adapted to some environment. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters.  The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside?

If you have scientific evidence of some Creation Hypothesis, please present it; or better yet, publish it in a scientific periodical. The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him.

I am a Christian. Without the Love of God, I am nothing. But, this has nothing to do with scientific evidence of evolution. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is the all consumming reason for the theory of evolution both atheistic and theistic.  The actually are one in the same after all are they not?

Response:

The Consequences of Theistic Evolution 6 (this is not for the atheistic evolutionist) No. 5  Misrepresentation of Reality

Now this has to be the best Certain arguments which appear constantly in evolutionist publications, show how mental  and phychological assurance is needed: "No serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution has happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another." R. Dawkins

They don’t. "Never before has a doctrine set up by a single person…been proved to be so true, as the theory of descent formulated by Charles Darwin" K. Lorenz

That’s true. Why does the doctrine of evolution require such assurances?  One will never find such confessions of belief in scientific journals dealing with physics, chemistry, or informatics.  Is it because the "theory of evolution" does not qualify as a scientific theory at all?  Below are some good examples: 1. No natural process which resulted in information forming automatically in matter, has ever been observed, and never will.

Explain a scree pile IKHDY. 2. No transition from one basic kind(insect, bird, bovine, canine, etc) to another has ever been observed yet the theory requires it as an absolute.

Trivial lie. New species forming has been observed many times. 3. The hypercycle theory devised by M. Eigen for explaining the origin of the first life, has never been verified experimentally.  And this conceptual system also does not qualify to be a theory, neither is there any relation to reality.

Abiogenesis is a scientific fact. 4. The frequently quoted transitional forms and "missing links" have never been found.  All fossils represent complete, perfect organisms.

Only a creationist postulates that animals are incomplete. It has also become clear from real scientific objections that evolution cannot "deliver the goods" as pretended by its supporters.  The question rightly arises why it is believed so emphatically, while the creation account of the Bible is so readily brushed aside? The correct answer is:  They hate God and wish to destroy Him.

It becomes clear the bibliolaters hate God’s reality and so must ignore it or try to hide its consequences. Elmer Bataitis              

Question:

Why concern youself? You have $100 invested in that entity. However much you get for EVERYTHING from that puter is your profit (or loss).

Not quite.  Everything you get is your revenue.  Everything you get minus the $100 is your profit or loss. The reason for concern is because the same problem arises in any situation when you buy a group of things with different values.  If you buy 50 widgets for $10 and they’re all going to sell for the same price, then they each cost you 20

Question:

that’s a lot of paws – not to mention fur! very hairy cats! Nice to see and hear from you Inge! lots of  lovely pics! so many furries … and that Bandit seem enough to keep you occupied all on his own! Roundabout? =o) — lewe       ‘o’< lewemi at yahoo dot se ‘o’< | Hi everyone:-) | | Some perhaps still remember me – however for the others a short | introduction: My name is Inge. When I began to read this NG some years | ago we had 3 cats: Tientje, She and Puschel. Now, that changed (as you | can read in the header). And then Owl and Dax came and then Chiara | came. And Chiara was pregnant. She delivered 5 kitten to the world: 4 | toms and 1 cat. We were firmly convinced of the fact that we would | find new homes for all of the kitten…:) But 1. it comes differently | and 2…. | The kitten were born in the night of 31.10.2001 to 01.11.2001 and are | now 7 months old. I think I reportet here when the babies were born | and gave a link to the pictures of them. Who is interested however, | can amuse himself with my homepage, which in the meantime nearly | bursts from the tons of cat pictures *g*. There the entire birth of | the kitten is documented in pictures from the day of their birth until | today. | First we had no more time for something different than cats, because | the mom-cat had too little milk for her children and we had to hand | feed them. We said to ourselves: that is only temporary – it will be | over when the babies first time start eating by themselves. | Then they could eat by themselves and we still had no time for | something else than cuddling with them and playing because they were | soooo cute and we couldn’t resist watching them develop. We said to | ourselves: that is only temporary -it will pass, when they are | somewhat larger. | Now they were somewhat larger and we still had no time for something | else because they got ‘ free course ‘ in the whole house now and we | had to do all hands full to prevent them from suicidal plays at stairs | and balconies. We secured stairs and balconies and thought, we do not | have to watch them that closely anymore. | However we did not have also ‘ more ‘ time now, because the Bandit, | who was the smallest and most impudent one of the litter always came | up with something new to keep us busy.E.G. he discovered that one | could hang its claws into the woofer of Volkers loudspeakers – thus | the Speakers became secured with screens. Bandit discovered also that | he could drive roundabout on the record player and that there was a | tone arm with such an amusing thing under there, where you could paw | at… Thus the record player got a cover. | We drew a deep breath and believed to have somewhat more time now | which turned out as mistake. The Bandit figured then out that he can | run up the wallpapers and again we had all hands full of work to pick | him from 2,50 m height and grumble with him. Who of you has seen pics | of Bandit knows that grumbling with him is not that easy – he has an | indescribable charm and is irresistibly cute *sigh*. Fortunately the | wallpaper is quite stable and bears the Bandit (still). Particularly | endangered places became ’secured’ with sisal carpets. Yes and then | there still are his sibblings: Lady Mortisha, Cottonball and Smoke. | Correctly, one is missing : -) We gave our Rasputin – we called him | that, because he was the largest in the litter – away. However he | lives not far away with good friends and we visit him regularly. And | he is not longer called Rasputin but Mr. Jingles (buahaha, a | mouse-name!) But enough of it and back to the topic. | As already said above, we didn’t have more time, because the Bandit | still has his sibblings. Everyone of them has his own tick and all | together are endowed ‘battle-cuddler’. | But we didn’t hesitate and told ourselves: That is only temporary. | When they are somewhat older, we give them a new home. The situation | stayed like this for quite some time. And then we became acquainted | with Sirikit and we fell in love with the little girl immediately. | When she was old enough for a new home (14 weeks), Sirikit moved in: | -) Our relatives and friends certified us completely nuts. We didn’t | talk about giving the babies away for a long time and actually we | can’t imagine giving one away. We can’t imagine either how life was | without them – and a life with plenty of time. Who now took in | account, comes on 44 paws. Correctly. One is missing. The Puschel. But | that is another story…. | | And here you find the latest pics of the gang, including me wearing my | cattidude-shirt:-) | http://www.gwsystems.com/inge/Galerie/310502/e_index.htm | | Purrs to all of you | Volker & Inge and the catgang | — | In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge | trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, | Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und | Sirikit

Response:

<snip We can’t imagine either how life was without them – and a life with plenty of time. Who now took in account, comes on 44 paws. Correctly. One is missing. The Puschel. But that is another story…. And here you find the latest pics of the gang, including me wearing my cattidude-shirt:-) http://www.gwsystems.com/inge/Galerie/310502/e_index.htm

Oh, all of them so are so beautiful! Thankou for letting us "share" them with you. What happened to Puschel? Yowie — RPCA FAQ: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/yowie/catfaq.htm

Response:

Hi Yowie:-) Oh, all of them so are so beautiful! Thankou for letting us "share" them with you.

thank you:-) I’m glad you like the pics. I could write a book about them. They keep us occupied all day long and even at night we can’t get rest because one of them always want a good scritch:-) Purrs to you, Joell, Fluffy and Shmogg:-) Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Soncek is swelling with pride, because you wrote he is lovely. He is purring doubly hard for you to find a much better job where you will be appreciated as much as we here at rpca appreciate you and where you will be earning a lot of money since you have so many hungry kitty mouths to feed, says Soncek. Best wishes from me too, Polonca

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello Polonca & Soncek:-) Oh, I’m so sorry to hear you lost your job. I do hope you get a much better one very soon. I’m sure kitties are happier now that you have more time to spend with them. Maybe you can find a job where you can work from home. Best wishes and purrs for a wonderful job for you, thanks for your good wishes:-) I’m writing applications right now and I think I will not be without work for long:-) Of course some purrs could be helpful:-) Purrs to you and lovely Soncek Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Hi Gandalf:-) I’ve always said if I had a cat that had kittens, I couldn’t imagine giving even a single one to a new home

In the beginning we were sure, that it would not be a problem, giving the babies away *buahahaha* But now… Bandit is a really pretty cat. It would be difficult/impossible to be angry with him for long. He looks like a little angel, but we all know looks can be deceiving!  

You are right. Bandit really looks like an angel. But he definitely is camouflaged *g*. He was the weakest and smallest of the litter. He also was never afraid of anyone or anything. When I think of Bandit the following comes into my mind: curiosity kills the cat… We love him anyway:-) Purrs to you Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Hi Grace:-) Yup, I remember you.  You’re Owl’s meowmy.  Still my pick for the cutest kitty contest anyday.

thats correct:-) I’ m Owls meowmy:-) He is the cutest cat I ever met. There is no evil in him at all. He never uses his claws or bites and he has no cattitudes at all. We had him and Dax neutered 2 weeks ago. Before the neutering the only thing he really wanted was beeing close and beeing cuddled. After the neutering it is the same. He has such a pleasant charakter and we love him dearly:-) Purrs to you Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Hi Christine:-) I can understand why these cuties would be hard to give up!  They are adorable and I truly enjoyed following their story from the birthing last year!  Thanks so much for the link to the photos — you look a great "slave" in your Cattitude shirt!

Thank you:-) I love my Cattitude shirt very much and I wear it quite often:-) Volker and I started discussion about giving them away recently but we can’t decide with which one to start. So I think they all will stay with us:-) When it comes to new homes for our cats we are quite picky:-) Lots of purrs to you and your lovely cats Omar, Midnight, Shetra & Oreo Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Hi Lena:-) that’s a lot of paws – not to mention fur! very hairy cats!

They are very hairy *g*. When they changed fur from winter to summer, we had tons of hairballs…. But now it is ok. A could brush once a week helps a lot:-)) lots of  lovely pics!

I’m glad you like them:-) I can’t decide which one to take or which one not. So I took them all:-) so many furries … and that Bandit seem enough to keep you occupied all on his own!

That is true. But fortunately the Bandit sleeps sometimes *g*…. Gives me quite some opportunity to do something else:-) Roundabout?

Yes. It is a thing where children can take a ride on on fairs. For Bandit it was Volkers turntable where he could take a ride on *g*. Purrs to you and your sweet kitties Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Whew! I was worried she got lost. Karen

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Karen:-) Love the pics!! What happened to Puschel? Thank you for your nice compliment. Puschel doesn’t live here anymore. She is living now with a very nice couple close by. I wrote her story down and I will post it as soon as I have translated it into English:-) Purrs Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Hi everyone:-) Some perhaps still remember me – however for the others a short introduction: My name is Inge. When I began to read this NG some years ago we had 3 cats: Tientje, She and Puschel. Now, that changed (as you can read in the header). And then Owl and Dax came and then Chiara came. And Chiara was pregnant. She delivered 5 kitten to the world: 4 toms and 1 cat.

Inge!  It’s great to see you posting again.  I’m sorry you lost your job, but I’m sure better things are coming for you. I would find it hard to part with such cute little furballs.  You have my admiriation for taking such good care of them. Hazel Az

Response:

Hello Hazel:-)) Inge!  It’s great to see you posting again.  I’m sorry you lost your job, but I’m sure better things are coming for you.

I’ m not that sad about loosing my job. I will soon find another. Good tax advisers/accountants are searched for all the time. And I finally found some time for the NG and a ‘little’ work in the garden:-) I would find it hard to part with such cute little furballs.  You have my admiriation for taking such good care of them.

The only thing I can reply to this is: <silent mode We are addicted! </silent mode Purrs to you, your family and your lovely furballs:-) Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Oh, I’m so sorry to hear you lost your job. I do hope you get a much better one very soon. I’m sure kitties are happier now that you have more time to spend with them. Maybe you can find a job where you can work from home. Best wishes and purrs for a wonderful job for you, — Polonca & Soncek

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks for your warm words. I was there all the time but reading only. After I lost my job recently I have some extra time to participate in this lovely NG. When I worked, I left home at 7:00 and came back at 17:00. First thing I had to do when I came home was cuddling with all of the cats. <snip

Response:

Hi everyone:-) SNIP And here you find the latest pics of the gang, including me wearing my cattidude-shirt:-) http://www.gwsystems.com/inge/Galerie/310502/e_index.htm Purrs to all of you Volker & Inge and the catgang

I’ve always said if I had a cat that had kittens, I couldn’t imagine giving even a single one to a new home Bandit is a really pretty cat. It would be difficult/impossible to be angry with him for long. He looks like a little angel, but we all know looks can be deceiving!   ~~~~~~ Life without cats would be only marginally worth living. T.C. and the unmercifully, relentlessly sweet calico Kenzie

Response:

Hello Polonca & Soncek:-) Oh, I’m so sorry to hear you lost your job. I do hope you get a much better one very soon. I’m sure kitties are happier now that you have more time to spend with them. Maybe you can find a job where you can work from home. Best wishes and purrs for a wonderful job for you,

thanks for your good wishes:-) I’m writing applications right now and I think I will not be without work for long:-) Of course some purrs could be helpful:-) Purrs to you and lovely Soncek Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Hi Karen:-) Love the pics!! What happened to Puschel?

Thank you for your nice compliment. Puschel doesn’t live here anymore. She is living now with a very nice couple close by. I wrote her story down and I will post it as soon as I have translated it into English:-) Purrs Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Inge! Where have you been? With this many babies it’s no wonder you haven’t even had time to post in the ng! What lovely babies they are…and so cute and funny. Please keep in touch with all of us, we miss you.

Thanks for your warm words. I was there all the time but reading only. After I lost my job recently I have some extra time to participate in this lovely NG. When I worked, I left home at 7:00 and came back at 17:00. First thing I had to do when I came home was cuddling with all of the cats. They knew exactly when I came and where waiting for there cuddles:-) Volker had dinner prepared by then and we had dinner. After dinner we did some cleaning and started playing with the cats. At about 22:30 I went to bed, surrounded by at least 6 cats…. Now I have some extra time when our cats are sleeping:-) Purrs to you and a good scritch to Jazz:-) Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Love the pics!! What happened to Puschel? Karen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And here you find the latest pics of the gang, including me wearing my cattidude-shirt:-) http://www.gwsystems.com/inge/Galerie/310502/e_index.htm Purrs to all of you Volker & Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Thank you so much for the update, Inge. I will set aside some time to look at your newest pics, they are so wonderful to watch. I’ve enjoyed all of them so much, I’ve seen how they’ve grown almost as if I were there with you. I do envy you though, having so many pretty kitties, but I do know it is hard to take care of them all – especially the hooli-kittens. Best wishes and purrs to you, Volker and the kitties, — Polonca & Soncek

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi everyone:-) Some perhaps still remember me <snip

Response:

Hello Polonca & Soncek, I’ve enjoyed all of them so much, I’ve seen how they’ve grown almost as if I were there with you.

That was my intension to show how they grow in pictures. Up to today there are about 600 pics of them:-) Sometimes I ask myself if I could take some of them off my page. But then I can’t decide which one to take. So I leave them all online to please myself and other catcrazy people:-) Lots of purrs for you and give Soncek a good scritch from us:-) Inge and the catgang *purr* — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Hi everyone:-) Some perhaps still remember me – however for the others a short introduction: My name is Inge. When I began to read this NG some years ago we had 3 cats: Tientje, She and Puschel. Now, that changed (as you can read in the header). And then Owl and Dax came and then Chiara came. And Chiara was pregnant. She delivered 5 kitten to the world: 4 toms and 1 cat. We were firmly convinced of the fact that we would find new homes for all of the kitten…:) But 1. it comes differently and 2…. The kitten were born in the night of 31.10.2001 to 01.11.2001 and are now 7 months old. I think I reportet here when the babies were born and gave a link to the pictures of them. Who is interested however, can amuse himself with my homepage, which in the meantime nearly bursts from the tons of cat pictures *g*. There the entire birth of the kitten is documented in pictures from the day of their birth until today. First we had no more time for something different than cats, because the mom-cat had too little milk for her children and we had to hand feed them. We said to ourselves: that is only temporary – it will be over when the babies first time start eating by themselves. Then they could eat by themselves and we still had no time for something else than cuddling with them and playing because they were soooo cute and we couldn’t resist watching them develop. We said to ourselves: that is only temporary -it will pass, when they are somewhat larger. Now they were somewhat larger and we still had no time for something else because they got ‘ free course ‘ in the whole house now and we had to do all hands full to prevent them from suicidal plays at stairs and balconies. We secured stairs and balconies and thought, we do not have to watch them that closely anymore. However we did not have also ‘ more ‘ time now, because the Bandit, who was the smallest and most impudent one of the litter always came up with something new to keep us busy.E.G. he discovered that one could hang its claws into the woofer of Volkers loudspeakers – thus the Speakers became secured with screens. Bandit discovered also that he could drive roundabout on the record player and that there was a tone arm with such an amusing thing under there, where you could paw at… Thus the record player got a cover. We drew a deep breath and believed to have somewhat more time now which turned out as mistake. The Bandit figured then out that he can run up the wallpapers and again we had all hands full of work to pick him from 2,50 m height and grumble with him. Who of you has seen pics of Bandit knows that grumbling with him is not that easy – he has an indescribable charm and is irresistibly cute *sigh*. Fortunately the wallpaper is quite stable and bears the Bandit (still). Particularly endangered places became ’secured’ with sisal carpets. Yes and then there still are his sibblings: Lady Mortisha, Cottonball and Smoke. Correctly, one is missing : -) We gave our Rasputin – we called him that, because he was the largest in the litter – away. However he lives not far away with good friends and we visit him regularly. And he is not longer called Rasputin but Mr. Jingles (buahaha, a mouse-name!) But enough of it and back to the topic. As already said above, we didn’t have more time, because the Bandit still has his sibblings. Everyone of them has his own tick and all together are endowed ‘battle-cuddler’. But we didn’t hesitate and told ourselves: That is only temporary. When they are somewhat older, we give them a new home. The situation stayed like this for quite some time. And then we became acquainted with Sirikit and we fell in love with the little girl immediately. When she was old enough for a new home (14 weeks), Sirikit moved in: -) Our relatives and friends certified us completely nuts. We didn’t talk about giving the babies away for a long time and actually we can’t imagine giving one away. We can’t imagine either how life was without them – and a life with plenty of time. Who now took in account, comes on 44 paws. Correctly. One is missing. The Puschel. But that is another story…. And here you find the latest pics of the gang, including me wearing my cattidude-shirt:-) http://www.gwsystems.com/inge/Galerie/310502/e_index.htm Purrs to all of you Volker & Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Hi everyone:-) Some perhaps still remember me Purrs to all of you Volker & Inge and the catgang —

Yup, I remember you.  You’re Owl’s meowmy.  Still my pick for the cutest kitty contest anyday. Grace

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi everyone:-) Some perhaps still remember me – however for the others a short introduction: My name is Inge. When I began to read this NG some years ago we had 3 cats: Tientje, She and Puschel. Now, that changed (as you can read in the header). And then Owl and Dax came and then Chiara came. And Chiara was pregnant. She delivered 5 kitten to the world: 4 toms and 1 cat. We were firmly convinced of the fact that we would find new homes for all of the kitten…:) But 1. it comes differently and 2…. The kitten were born in the night of 31.10.2001 to 01.11.2001 and are now 7 months old. I think I reportet here when the babies were born and gave a link to the pictures of them. Who is interested however, can amuse himself with my homepage, which in the meantime nearly bursts from the tons of cat pictures *g*. There the entire birth of the kitten is documented in pictures from the day of their birth until today. First we had no more time for something different than cats, because the mom-cat had too little milk for her children and we had to hand feed them. We said to ourselves: that is only temporary – it will be over when the babies first time start eating by themselves. Then they could eat by themselves and we still had no time for something else than cuddling with them and playing because they were soooo cute and we couldn’t resist watching them develop. We said to ourselves: that is only temporary -it will pass, when they are somewhat larger. Now they were somewhat larger and we still had no time for something else because they got ‘ free course ‘ in the whole house now and we had to do all hands full to prevent them from suicidal plays at stairs and balconies. We secured stairs and balconies and thought, we do not have to watch them that closely anymore. However we did not have also ‘ more ‘ time now, because the Bandit, who was the smallest and most impudent one of the litter always came up with something new to keep us busy.E.G. he discovered that one could hang its claws into the woofer of Volkers loudspeakers – thus the Speakers became secured with screens. Bandit discovered also that he could drive roundabout on the record player and that there was a tone arm with such an amusing thing under there, where you could paw at… Thus the record player got a cover. We drew a deep breath and believed to have somewhat more time now which turned out as mistake. The Bandit figured then out that he can run up the wallpapers and again we had all hands full of work to pick him from 2,50 m height and grumble with him. Who of you has seen pics of Bandit knows that grumbling with him is not that easy – he has an indescribable charm and is irresistibly cute *sigh*. Fortunately the wallpaper is quite stable and bears the Bandit (still). Particularly endangered places became ’secured’ with sisal carpets. Yes and then there still are his sibblings: Lady Mortisha, Cottonball and Smoke. Correctly, one is missing : -) We gave our Rasputin – we called him that, because he was the largest in the litter – away. However he lives not far away with good friends and we visit him regularly. And he is not longer called Rasputin but Mr. Jingles (buahaha, a mouse-name!) But enough of it and back to the topic. As already said above, we didn’t have more time, because the Bandit still has his sibblings. Everyone of them has his own tick and all together are endowed ‘battle-cuddler’. But we didn’t hesitate and told ourselves: That is only temporary. When they are somewhat older, we give them a new home. The situation stayed like this for quite some time. And then we became acquainted with Sirikit and we fell in love with the little girl immediately. When she was old enough for a new home (14 weeks), Sirikit moved in: -) Our relatives and friends certified us completely nuts. We didn’t talk about giving the babies away for a long time and actually we can’t imagine giving one away. We can’t imagine either how life was without them – and a life with plenty of time. Who now took in account, comes on 44 paws. Correctly. One is missing. The Puschel. But that is another story…. And here you find the latest pics of the gang, including me wearing my cattidude-shirt:-) http://www.gwsystems.com/inge/Galerie/310502/e_index.htm Purrs to all of you Volker & Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Inge, I can understand why these cuties would be hard to give up!  They are adorable and I truly enjoyed following their story from the birthing last year!  Thanks so much for the link to the photos — you look a great "slave" in your Cattitude shirt! Regards, Christine and purrs from Omar, Midnight, Shetra & Ore (pictures: http://www.ejepo.com/burel)

Response:

Inge! Where have you been? With this many babies it’s no wonder you haven’t even had time to post in the ng! What lovely babies they are…and so cute and funny. Please keep in touch with all of us, we miss you. Jazz & his mama — Irulan from the stars we came, to the stars we return from now until the end of time

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi everyone:-) Some perhaps still remember me – however for the others a short introduction: My name is Inge. When I began to read this NG some years ago we had 3 cats: Tientje, She and Puschel. Now, that changed (as you can read in the header). And then Owl and Dax came and then Chiara came. And Chiara was pregnant. She delivered 5 kitten to the world: 4 toms and 1 cat. We were firmly convinced of the fact that we would find new homes for all of the kitten…:) But 1. it comes differently and 2…. The kitten were born in the night of 31.10.2001 to 01.11.2001 and are now 7 months old. I think I reportet here when the babies were born and gave a link to the pictures of them. Who is interested however, can amuse himself with my homepage, which in the meantime nearly bursts from the tons of cat pictures *g*. There the entire birth of the kitten is documented in pictures from the day of their birth until today. First we had no more time for something different than cats, because the mom-cat had too little milk for her children and we had to hand feed them. We said to ourselves: that is only temporary – it will be over when the babies first time start eating by themselves. Then they could eat by themselves and we still had no time for something else than cuddling with them and playing because they were soooo cute and we couldn’t resist watching them develop. We said to ourselves: that is only temporary -it will pass, when they are somewhat larger. Now they were somewhat larger and we still had no time for something else because they got ‘ free course ‘ in the whole house now and we had to do all hands full to prevent them from suicidal plays at stairs and balconies. We secured stairs and balconies and thought, we do not have to watch them that closely anymore. However we did not have also ‘ more ‘ time now, because the Bandit, who was the smallest and most impudent one of the litter always came up with something new to keep us busy.E.G. he discovered that one could hang its claws into the woofer of Volkers loudspeakers – thus the Speakers became secured with screens. Bandit discovered also that he could drive roundabout on the record player and that there was a tone arm with such an amusing thing under there, where you could paw at… Thus the record player got a cover. We drew a deep breath and believed to have somewhat more time now which turned out as mistake. The Bandit figured then out that he can run up the wallpapers and again we had all hands full of work to pick him from 2,50 m height and grumble with him. Who of you has seen pics of Bandit knows that grumbling with him is not that easy – he has an indescribable charm and is irresistibly cute *sigh*. Fortunately the wallpaper is quite stable and bears the Bandit (still). Particularly endangered places became ’secured’ with sisal carpets. Yes and then there still are his sibblings: Lady Mortisha, Cottonball and Smoke. Correctly, one is missing : -) We gave our Rasputin – we called him that, because he was the largest in the litter – away. However he lives not far away with good friends and we visit him regularly. And he is not longer called Rasputin but Mr. Jingles (buahaha, a mouse-name!) But enough of it and back to the topic. As already said above, we didn’t have more time, because the Bandit still has his sibblings. Everyone of them has his own tick and all together are endowed ‘battle-cuddler’. But we didn’t hesitate and told ourselves: That is only temporary. When they are somewhat older, we give them a new home. The situation stayed like this for quite some time. And then we became acquainted with Sirikit and we fell in love with the little girl immediately. When she was old enough for a new home (14 weeks), Sirikit moved in: -) Our relatives and friends certified us completely nuts. We didn’t talk about giving the babies away for a long time and actually we can’t imagine giving one away. We can’t imagine either how life was without them – and a life with plenty of time. Who now took in account, comes on 44 paws. Correctly. One is missing. The Puschel. But that is another story…. And here you find the latest pics of the gang, including me wearing my cattidude-shirt:-) http://www.gwsystems.com/inge/Galerie/310502/e_index.htm Purrs to all of you Volker & Inge and the catgang — In CatManiacs World: http://www.gwsystems.com/inge trifft man die Katzis Tientje, She, das Gast-Puschel, Owl, Dax, Chiara, Lady Mortisha, Bandit, Smoke, Cottonball und Sirikit

Response:

Question:

If you still want the benefits of the vigorous boil (better hot break and hop utilization) without having to collect that much runoff, just add some plain water to the kettle, either at the start of the boil, or partway through. FWIW, if you’re really losing 2 gallons in 60 minutes, I do think you could back the burner down a little more too…

You know, he could place a LID over the kettle to stop the evaporation. Maybe just Crack it.  and he won’t lose as much if he’s worried about it… I try to get 7+ gal, from the sparge and boil to 5+ somewhere round 1.5-2.0 hours. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —

Response:

Just out of curiousity, do you have have 7.5 gallons at the start of the boil or is that when you start heating? Just wondering, you may actually be loosing 1/4 to 1/2 gallon in the time it takes to bring it up to a boil. I usually leave my kettle about 90% covered until I get to within 10 degrees of boiling, then leave it all the way off. Cheers! – Jeff

Response:

Howdy Jim, I get a good boil off too. Wonder if it’s altitude related. Here in Denver, water boils right around 200f. That would require proportionally less flame than at lower altitudes, I suppose. And that gets me wondering if barometric pressure and humidity play any role in boil off rates…

To a good first approximation neither will affect boiloff rates.  The amount of *energy* it takes to boil off some water, and the temperature at which boiling occurs, are not linearly related.  The humidity is less of a factor.  If I dig back in my old physical chemistry books I can find more, if you care. –arne DISCLAIMER:  These opinions and statements are those of the author and do not represent any views or positions of the Hewlett-Packard Co.

Response:

Good point, Jeff – you surmize correctly. I’m starting out with 7.5 gallons of wort, but I’m not sure how much I lose before teh boil actually begins. However, like you, I also put a lid on the keg (slightly ajar) ubtil I get close to boiling. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Just out of curiousity, do you have have 7.5 gallons at the start of the boil or is that when you start heating? Just wondering, you may actually be loosing 1/4 to 1/2 gallon in the time it takes to bring it up to a boil. I usually leave my kettle about 90% covered until I get to within 10 degrees of boiling, then leave it all the way off. Cheers! – Jeff

Response:

I have a King Cooker.  I usually start out with 7.8 gallons to end up with around 5.3 gallons in a 2 hour boil. — Robin The Poconos

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m using a standard converted keg as a boiler with a King Kooker burner. During a 60 minute boil, I lose almost two gallons due to evaporation, which means I have to start out with about 7.5 gallons of wort. I don’t have the burner cranked up so high that the boil is overly vigorous — in fact, if I turned it down very much it would end up simmering instead of boiling. Does this seem excessive, or is it fairly normal?

Response:

I also use a King Kooker and typically lose 1.25 gal / hr.  My boiling goal is to boil as vigorous as possible without boiling over.  If I were you, I would check the calibration of your kettle and do not simmer your wort. —–ActiveX

| I’m using a standard converted keg as a boiler with a King Kooker | burner. During a 60 minute boil, I lose almost two gallons due to | evaporation, which means I have to start out with about 7.5 gallons of | wort. | | I don’t have the burner cranked up so high that the boil is overly | vigorous — in fact, if I turned it down very much it would end up | simmering instead of boiling. | | Does this seem excessive, or is it fairly normal?

Response:

Howdy Jim, I get a good boil off too. Wonder if it’s altitude related. Here in Denver, water boils right around 200f. That would require proportionally less flame than at lower altitudes, I suppose. And that gets me wondering if barometric pressure and humidity play any role in boil off rates… -Brett – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m using a standard converted keg as a boiler with a King Kooker burner. During a 60 minute boil, I lose almost two gallons due to evaporation, which means I have to start out with about 7.5 gallons of wort. I don’t have the burner cranked up so high that the boil is overly vigorous — in fact, if I turned it down very much it would end up simmering instead of boiling. Does this seem excessive, or is it fairly normal?

Response:

If you still want the benefits of the vigorous boil (better hot break and hop utilization) without having to collect that much runoff, just add some plain water to the kettle, either at the start of the boil, or partway through. FWIW, if you’re really losing 2 gallons in 60 minutes, I do think you could back the burner down a little more too… — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m using a standard converted keg as a boiler with a King Kooker burner. During a 60 minute boil, I lose almost two gallons due to evaporation, which means I have to start out with about 7.5 gallons of wort. I don’t have the burner cranked up so high that the boil is overly vigorous — in fact, if I turned it down very much it would end up simmering instead of boiling. Does this seem excessive, or is it fairly normal?

Response:

You can also try partially covering the kettle.  I find I can maintain vigerous boil w/ lower heat if the pot is 1/2 or 2/3 covered.  As long as you’re venting some steam, you won’t build up DMS.  Whenever I’ve toured breweries, I’ve always been amazed at how small the kettle vents are. Drew

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you still want the benefits of the vigorous boil (better hot break and hop utilization) without having to collect that much runoff, just add some plain water to the kettle, either at the start of the boil, or partway through.

Response:

FWIW, if you’re really losing 2 gallons in 60 minutes, I do think you could back the burner down a little more too…

Well, last night I started with just over 7.5 gallons in the keg (slightly more than half full), and let it go for an hour at what could best be callled a "modest" boil. It was clearly boiling, but if I had backed off the propane at all it would have reduced to a simmer. Accounting for the half gallon or so left in the kettle and absorbed by the hops (leaf, not pellets!), I figure I lost about two gallons during the boil. What would happen if I left the keg partially covered during the boil so that at least some of the steam condensed and dripped back? Would that effect the hot break or hop utilization? I’m not worried about a boilover since there’s more than enough excess capacity.

Response:

Howdy Jim,

He’s dead, Jim. Sorry, i just had to.  another irrelavant post I know. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I get a good boil off too. Wonder if it’s altitude related. Here in Denver, water boils right around 200f. That would require proportionally less flame than at lower altitudes, I suppose. And that gets me wondering if barometric pressure and humidity play any role in boil off rates… -Brett I’m using a standard converted keg as a boiler with a King Kooker burner. During a 60 minute boil, I lose almost two gallons due to evaporation, which means I have to start out with about 7.5 gallons of wort. I don’t have the burner cranked up so high that the boil is overly vigorous — in fact, if I turned it down very much it would end up simmering instead of boiling. Does this seem excessive, or is it fairly normal?

Response:

That’s about what I koose in my converted keg over the course of an hour.  I don’t understand what the problem is…you know the boiloff rate, you compensate.  Doesn’t really matter what other people get, it’s knowing what your system does. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m using a standard converted keg as a boiler with a King Kooker burner. During a 60 minute boil, I lose almost two gallons due to evaporation, which means I have to start out with about 7.5 gallons of wort. I don’t have the burner cranked up so high that the boil is overly vigorous — in fact, if I turned it down very much it would end up simmering instead of boiling. Does this seem excessive, or is it fairly normal?

Response:

I’m using a standard converted keg as a boiler with a King Kooker burner. During a 60 minute boil, I lose almost two gallons due to evaporation, which means I have to start out with about 7.5 gallons of wort. I don’t have the burner cranked up so high that the boil is overly vigorous — in fact, if I turned it down very much it would end up simmering instead of boiling. Does this seem excessive, or is it fairly normal?

Response:

Question:

someone referred me here but this seems not the right place.  the messages here are all crossposts and spam. i was going to share my concerns but obviously this isnt the right place.  this place seems deserted. is there a support group somewhere that I’m not aware of? …logging off in disgust… terri

Response:

People don’t talk about OCD here. Pop Quiz, why are you such a pest?   .

Question:

I missed this great news before. Perhaps it is why Intuit QB sales are still so good. http://www.intuit.com/corporate/press_releases/052300a.html The last time we saw anything like it was with "new Coke" and "Coke Classic." In both cases smart people turned a big mistake into a big success. mike block

Interesting that they don’t mention in their report that the reason their payroll service percent has increased so much is due to the fact that they made the service mandatory or your software was crippled…. p.s.  I’m starting to figure out how this forum works – some of you guys are way, way over my head – but it has been interesting and informative.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I found out something interesting today.  We use QuickBooks Pro 99 and have no intention of upgrading to QB Pro 2000 because of the required online payroll service.  We wanted to install QB on another computer and do multi-user mode, so I was on a quest to find a copy of 99.  I found a place that sold licenses, which would be fine since we already have the software. But we weren’t sure if it would allow us to do multi-user.  The CS rep suggested that I check with Intuit. So I did.  It turns out that QB Pro 99 will be available again late this month.  Apparently they had so much flack about the required internet access and use with the program that they had to put it back in production.  The rep asked why we didn’t want QB Pro 2000.  The rep was somewhat apologetic and said "We’ve been told to get our customers opinions."  I told him that we had internet access and used it for e-mail, but that I would never NEVER do anything with my company’s finances online.  Apparently lots of others feel the same way.  When was the last time you heard of a company going back into production with last years product? Paula   Mike Block, Tax Fighting C.P.A.  World’s #1 QuickBooks Top Tester   FREE 462p QB book/error codes/ 80 QB add-ons http://blocktax.com    Ft Lauderdale FL 954-566-7540

Before you buy.

Response:

I find it interesting that Intuit reports the tremendous increase in on- line payroll customers, but fails to mention that the increase is due to mandatory enrollment.  I, and many other QB Pro advisors, will not subscribe to their extortion; in fact, some of us have the programs calculating taxes correctly without their payroll service (absolutely nothing illegal is being done) – just some of us are not as dumb and Intuit thinks.  Mandatory payroll enrollment is only one issue/problem with QB2000 – security is a serious issue as well as those annoying automatic updates, which in a multi-user environment are a pain in the you know what.  I’ve shut that feature off, but anytime you do a reinstall, the install program dials to the internet, then the new install has a different update than the rest of the systems on the network – it is necessary to disconnect your internet connections when you install the software.  I want to choose when I will update my network computers; I also want a working program is I don’t subscribe to their payroll extortion.  Many faithful users are jumping ship. P.S. I do not know if I will be able to find this discussion board again – I found it by accident – but i am very interested in the discussion.  I have been very vocal on the Intuit user-to-user forum, but the furor has died down – not because we’ve accepted the situation –  many of us our working together to see what influence we can have on Intuit.   I searched for "alt.comp.software.financial.quickbooks" but it came back that it did not exist.  So what is the address for the main QB forum?  Is this it?  If not, please point me in the correct direction – I am an accountant, not a discussion group expert, I have had a problem figuring out how this discussion board works – but maybe I have it partially figured out! Liane I missed this great news before. Perhaps it is why Intuit QB sales are still so good. http://www.intuit.com/corporate/press_releases/052300a.html The last time we saw anything like it was with "new Coke" and "Coke Classic." In both cases smart people turned a big mistake into a big success. mike block

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I found out something interesting today.  We use QuickBooks Pro 99 and have no intention of upgrading to QB Pro 2000 because of the required online payroll service.  We wanted to install QB on another computer and do multi-user mode, so I was on a quest to find a copy of 99.  I found a place that sold licenses, which would be fine since we already have the software. But we weren’t sure if it would allow us to do multi-user.  The CS rep suggested that I check with Intuit. So I did.  It turns out that QB Pro 99 will be available again late this month.  Apparently they had so much flack about the required internet access and use with the program that they had to put it back in production.  The rep asked why we didn’t want QB Pro 2000.  The rep was somewhat apologetic and said "We’ve been told to get our customers opinions."  I told him that we had internet access and used it for e-mail, but that I would never NEVER do anything with my company’s finances online.  Apparently lots of other feel the same way.  When was the last time you heard of a company going back into production with last years product? Paula   Mike Block, Tax Fighting C.P.A.  World’s #1 QuickBooks Top Tester   FREE 462p QB book/error codes/ 80 QB add-ons http://blocktax.com    Ft Lauderdale FL 954-566-7540

Before you buy.

Response:

 When was the last time you heard of a company going back into production with last years product?

Coca Cola reintroduced "Classic" Coke in the mid 80s when they were deluged with letters from angry customers (my then teenage son among them) after  replaceing the old formula with a "new and improved" formula.  Customer demand does work – if there is enough of it. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

I missed this great news before. Perhaps it is why Intuit QB sales are still so good. http://www.intuit.com/corporate/press_releases/052300a.html The last time we saw anything like it was with "new Coke" and "Coke Classic." In both cases smart people turned a big mistake into a big success. mike block – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I found out something interesting today.  We use QuickBooks Pro 99 and have no intention of upgrading to QB Pro 2000 because of the required online payroll service.  We wanted to install QB on another computer and do multi-user mode, so I was on a quest to find a copy of 99.  I found a place that sold licenses, which would be fine since we already have the software. But we weren’t sure if it would allow us to do multi-user.  The CS rep suggested that I check with Intuit. So I did.  It turns out that QB Pro 99 will be available again late this month.  Apparently they had so much flack about the required internet access and use with the program that they had to put it back in production.  The rep asked why we didn’t want QB Pro 2000.  The rep was somewhat apologetic and said "We’ve been told to get our customers opinions."  I told him that we had internet access and used it for e-mail, but that I would never NEVER do anything with my company’s finances online.  Apparently lots of other feel the same way.  When was the last time you heard of a company going back into production with last years product? Paula

  Mike Block, Tax Fighting C.P.A.  World’s #1 QuickBooks Top Tester   FREE 462p QB book/error codes/ 80 QB add-ons http://blocktax.com    Ft Lauderdale FL 954-566-7540

Response:

I found out something interesting today.  We use QuickBooks Pro 99 and have no intention of upgrading to QB Pro 2000 because of the required online payroll service.  We wanted to install QB on another computer and do multi-user mode, so I was on a quest to find a copy of 99.  I found a place that sold licenses, which would be fine since we already have the software. But we weren’t sure if it would allow us to do multi-user.  The CS rep suggested that I check with Intuit. So I did.  It turns out that QB Pro 99 will be available again late this month.  Apparently they had so much flack about the required internet access and use with the program that they had to put it back in production.  The rep asked why we didn’t want QB Pro 2000.  The rep was somewhat apologetic and said "We’ve been told to get our customers opinions."  I told him that we had internet access and used it for e-mail, but that I would never NEVER do anything with my company’s finances online.  Apparently lots of other feel the same way.  When was the last time you heard of a company going back into production with last years product? Paula

Response:

Question:

 A tall sail as opposed to a long footed sail of the same square footage will be better in heavy ocean conditions because when you are in between   crests the wind is blocked by the next crest. IMHO.

Response:

  /Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana AB/Well, it is almost certainly because a club footed sail is much easier   /to control (shape and sail area, that is).  Traditionally, the multiple   /headsails come from the need to match sail area to wind conditions.  It   /is not possible to reef a loose footed sail! However, a club foted sail   /like a main is easy to reef.         Andy – I’m sure I’ve seen jibs with extra sets of tack and clue, with reefing points!  The advantage is sail shape (over roller reefing), and the disadvantage might be having to go up on the foredeck to reef…         Laughlin Hughes         Toronto  * OLX 2.2 * Sailors do it with more GUST!

Response:

It is my understanding of the racing rules that the main may not be changed during a race.

        I don’t see any rule that says that.  64.1 does say, "… only one mainsail and, except when changing, only one spinnaker, shall be carried set."  I take this to mean that the double main halyard, double main luff groove system I pondered in an earlier posting would be illegal.  It still allows you to take a main down and replace it with another one, as long as you don’t have two up at the same time.  If changing a headsail this way is called doing a bareheaded change, would changing a main like this be a bareassed change?         Individual classes may make carrying a second main illegal.  I know the J/24 class does, but it still allows a storm trysail.  I have no idea what Shore or North would do if you called them up and ordered a storm trysail for a J/24.  Presumably they’d sell you one, but probably only after they stopped laughing.  Kenny Read *insists* that the boat is always slower with a reef, even in 30 kts, as proved by side-by-side comparison testing.  Then again, Kenny Read insists you don’t need any jib sheet cleats on the boat.         Would you buy a storm trysail from somebody that specializes in building mainsails with "class minimum reef points"? — Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA "This never happened to Bart Simpson."

Response:

       Of course you could take it to the logical extreme ala 18 footers which have 3 different mains AND masts to deal with the rigs — Sounds to me like you really want a sailboard (they go faster too!)

It never occured to me that I should carry more than one sail on my board; dummy me always goes back to shore to change sails when the wind speed changes. (The "big" boats around here know how to beat us; they just point upwind.) Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans          Those who can, teach;                                      those who can’t, don’t;

Response:

   Individual classes may make carrying a second main illegal.  I know the J/24 class does, but it still allows a storm trysail.  I have no idea what Shore or North would do if you called them up and ordered a storm trysail for a J/24.  Presumably they’d sell you one, but probably only after they stopped laughing.  

At the other end of the scale, a friend of mine picked up a used J-30 with a heavy air spinnaker, 3/4 ounce.  Unfortunately I’ve yet to see it up Kenny Read *insists* that the boat is always slower with a reef, even in 30 kts, as proved by side-by-side comparison testing.  

Maybe faster with 900 lbs of rail meat, with me and my mumble mumble mumble lb girl friend, I don’t think so.  That backstay only comes down so far. Then again, Kenny Read insists you don’t need any jib sheet cleats on the boat.

I took one of the J-World sailing classes and one of the instructors (far from the best one) immediately put all the winch handles down below saying, "we won’t be needing those."  All reactions to that comment aside the class was great. =bill — William Z. Pope                                     Phone: +1 (617) 621-8889 Open Software Foundation                              Fax: +1 (617) 621-0584 Cambridge, MA  02142                             OSF DME Integration Project

Response:

Roy Smith writes:

        Individual classes may make carrying a second main illegal.  I know         the J/24 class does, but it still allows a storm trysail.  I have no         idea what Shore or North would do if you called them up and ordered         a storm trysail for a J/24.  Presumably they’d sell you one, but         probably only after they stopped laughing.   My guess is that the storm trysail is allowed for pseudo-safety reasons; that is, to look good on paper.         Kenny Read *insists* that the boat is always slower with a reef,         even in 30 kts, as proved by side-by-side comparison testing.  Then         again, Kenny Read insists you don’t need any jib sheet cleats on         the boat. This doesn’t surprise me one wit, and serves to encourage a bit of experimentation. Reefed sails are clearly an abomination aerodynamically, and, I guess, they do the sail no good whatsoever. The point is, in 30 kts of wind how much faster (or slower) would a J24 sail with a 70% main properly cut for the conditions? I have been quite fascionated by the amount of heat generated by my simple, naive question. I suspect few people really know the answer for the obvious reason — they’ve never tried it. Someone suggested it might be "downright dangerous", or words to that effect. Really? I’d rather work around the mast than dance around the bow any day, The fact of the matter is that a loose- footed main and lazy jacks would seem to make the whole process a piece of cake. In any case, I had in mind the many, many boats I see out in the Bay of an afternoon who are clearly overpowered and, consequently, not going as fast as they should be (if that is the criterion). The 20-30kt winds are almost completely predictable, and it would be not difficult to set a 70% main before going out. of course I recognize that there is a "macho" factor at work that has got not much to do with fast sailing, yet alone good seamanship, and which has given rise to the well-known expression "setting a San Francisco Reef", that is, allowing a fluttering roach and an exaggerated angle of heel to depower the boat. Ugh.                                                         Fido

Response:

Changing a mainsail "on the fly" is potentially dangerous.  Personally, I would be uncomfortable relying completely on a headsail for power and maneuverability while changing mainsails in high winds / big waves.  Too much lee helm!  Difficult to keep the boat headed upwind.  (I don’t think I would care to try changing mainsails off the wind!) <Uninformed speculation follows Perhaps this is WHY the racing rules do not permit mainsail changes during races. — Scott Thompson

Response:

Regarding reefing a loose-footed headsail… | Disadvantages | |        1)  All sail area is lost at the foot; less control over shape |            than can be attained using a completely different sail. I would think lowering the centre of effort of the sail would be a good thing, but I guess not if you are talking about moderate conditions (i.e. 20 kts). … |        4)  Requires a sail made for reefing. Do you mean the sail must be cut specially for reefing, or that it must have reefing cringles in it.  The latter is clear.  Can I have a reef point put in my #3 by a sailmaker, or do they also need to recut the shape of it? dK 8999 Nelson Way Burnaby, BC, CANADA V5A 4B5

Response:

Regarding reefing a loose-footed headsail… | Disadvantages | |        1)  All sail area is lost at the foot; less control over shape |            than can be attained using a completely different sail. I would think lowering the centre of effort of the sail would be a good thing, but I guess not if you are talking about moderate conditions (i.e. 20 kts). … |        4)  Requires a sail made for reefing. Do you mean the sail must be cut specially for reefing, or that it must have reefing cringles in it.  The latter is clear.  Can I have a reef point put in my #3 by a sailmaker, or do they also need to recut the shape of it?

I am not a sailmaker nor an expert in sail design.  However    (i)  It is my understanding that (in heavy conditions, when racing,         ignoring comfort, on a boat that is set up for it) a tall but         narrow headsail can outperform a short, long footed headsail of         equal area.  (I recall seeing a cover picture on Yacht Racing         magazine of "Love Machine" racing in huge waves in the         Gulf Stream.  Despite very heavy winds and two reefs in the main,         she was carrying a "blade" headsail that ran almost to the         masthead, but was very narrow.  The crew did not appear         comfortable.)  I believe the advantage comes from having a taller         slot between the main and headsail.  Perhaps some experts would         like to discuss the theoretical side of the question.    (ii) Since a reefed headsail gets a lot of abuse it is probably not         wise (but possible) to modify an existing #3 for reefing.  The         reefable headsails I have seen have all been very heavy duty         dacron, and undoubtably wear out faster than other sails.  On         the other hand, you don’t need to buy as many sails in the first         place! — Scott Thompson

Response:

I have never understood why boats may carry half-a-dozen foresails which are slipped up and down more often than a bride’s nightie, but the poor old main just gets reefed. 1) It’s illegal in most racing rules to change the main during a race.

        Isn’t it generally true that things which are made illegal by racing associations improve boat performance?

Response:

Well, it is almost certainly because a club footed sail is much easier to control (shape and sail area, that is).  Traditionally, the multiple headsails come from the need to match sail area to wind conditions.  It is not possible to reef a loose footed sail! However, a club foted sail like a main is easy to reef.

Actually it is possible to reef a loose footed sail, enabling some boats to carry fewer headsails.  Some time ago I taught racing techniques on a Santa Cruz 33 at a large university sailing club.  We routinely reefed our number 2 genoa to a number 3 in heavy air.  (We sometimes reefed our heavy number one genoa to a "1.5", but the technique is far less effective on larger sails.)  The procedure went something like this.          1) rig new jib sheets onto the new (reefed) clew.          2) drop the halyard just far enough to slip the new tack             onto the tack hook at the bow.  Retension halyard.          3) simultaneously (with 2) take up tension on the new             sheet (but not so much tension that you can’t lower the sail.)          4) trim the new sheet hard as soon as the halyard is secure.          5) untie the old sheets from the old clew, gather in the loose             foot of the sail (now on deck) and tie up using reef points.             (Must be tied very securely or they will shake out when              you tack.)          A temporary sheet can be used if you don’t have two sets of          headsail winches. Advantages relative to complete change of headsail        1)  don’t need as many sails        2)  very fast change in sail area        3)  very fast and easy to shake out when you want more sail area,           (say when rounding the weather mark onto a non-spinnaker reach)        4)  no need to stow the old sail and prepare it for a switch back. Disadvantages        1)  All sail area is lost at the foot; less control over shape            than can be attained using a completely different sail.        2)  Temporarily requires some crew on the low side to tie reef points        3)  Reefed sail does not tack as smoothly as an unreefed one.        4)  Requires a sail made for reefing. — Scott Thompson

Response:

Bereson) writes: | I have never understood why boats may carry half-a-dozen foresails | which are slipped up and down more often than a bride’s nightie, but | the poor old main just gets reefed. I know custom die hard in the | yotty world, but does it really make sense not to carry and use at least | two mains? | |                                       Curious

Someone else already wrote that some boats do have multiple mains. Though it’s a lot easier to change jibs in midrace than to change mains (in the era of multigroove headfoils and multiple halyards). Well, it is almost certainly because a club footed sail is much easier to control (shape and sail area, that is).  Traditionally, the multiple headsails come from the need to match sail area to wind conditions.  It is not possible to reef a loose footed sail! However, a club foted sail like a main is easy to reef.

I beg to differ: loose-footed mains can certainly be reefed. Genoas can even be reefed, and you do see some with reef points. I’ve tried reefable genoas and some work pretty well.

Response:

I have never understood why boats may carry half-a-dozen foresails which are slipped up and down more often than a bride’s nightie, but the poor old main just gets reefed.

1) It’s illegal in most racing rules to change the main during a race. 2) It would take longer to get the mains off and on the mast and the boom than to get a jib off just the headstay. I suppose there could be equipment like double luff and foot grooves, but this would complicate the rig and since racers can’t use it, and cruisers presumably wouldn’t mind going bare in the ‘aftriangle’ for a while, why bother? I have been on boats that do carry a heavy weather main, but if it’s not an extended passage, the one that goes up upon embarking is most likely going to stay up. 3) reefing is a pretty quick and effective way to both flatten and shorten the main. Homewood Computing Facilities, Johns Hopkins University, Balto. Md. 21218 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – * OLX 2.1 * ease!Trim!eeeaaaassse!trimtrimTRIMeeeeeeeaaaaaasse!trimea

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (Francis Muir) says: I have never understood why boats may carry half-a-dozen foresails which are slipped up and down more often than a bride’s nightie, but the poor old main just gets reefed. I know custom die hard in the yotty world, but does it really make sense not to carry and use at least two mains?                                        Curious Some people do indeed have several mains. The Americas cup boats had 3 mains (light, medium, and heavy). Maybe some one design sailors (like wealthy J24s) may have a few serious mains. I don’t mean the current main, and an old main. The main is designed to be a pretty flexible sail. Using controls available (on a bendy mast at least), you can make some pretty substantial changes to it’s shape.

I think that finances may dictate what wardrobe you have (if you are not racing). Another problem is that the mainsail is usually heavier than the headsails and not as easy to get on and off the tracks (foot and luff). Getting a mainsail down at sea is not fun – much easier to reef on un-reef. I guess most cruising yachts would carry a storm trisail instead of a second mainsail.

Response:

I have been quite fascionated by the amount of heat generated by my simple, naive question. I suspect few people really know the answer for the obvious reason — they’ve never tried it. Someone suggested it might be "downright dangerous", or words to that effect. Really? I’d rather work around the mast than dance around the bow any day…

You didn’t say in your original posting that only those who sail with multiple mains are allowed to participate in the discussion, so lots of people gave it a shot… Anyway, what’s the correct answer? I stick to my opinion that changing mains in a blow would be hazardous. Imagine it: you’re in the slot between Alcatraz and the City Front, it’s blowing like stink, cold fog, there’s a nasty ebb, the chop is murder, you’ve already hammered down the main and you’re still flogging it to keep water out of the cockpit. Where would you rather go: up to the mast to haul down a huge sail and then feed a new one, desperately wedged against the shrouds. Don’t forget a trip out to the end of the boom to attach outhaul, flattener and  reefing lines, all the while fighting a monster that wants to go to Berkeley and take you with it. Wouldn’t you rather be kneeling on a nice safe (albeit wet) foredeck, surrounded by sturdy lifelines? I heartily agree that the typical summer afternoon (see above) finds many boats on the Bay sailing over on their ear for no reason. The answer is simple and provided for by the sail manufacturer: REEF! Stefan Michalowski

Response:

does it really make sense not to carry and use at least two mains?

        I guess the answer is that it’s a lot easier to change a jib than it is to change a main.  Part of the reason is because mains tend to be a lot larger than jibs, but that’s not always the case.  If you keep pounding on the question, however, you may find that it’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg story.  Mains are hard to change because nobody’s worked out good ways to change them, and nobody thinks about good ways to change a main because nobody would ever want to do it.         I wonder if you could build a double-slotted mast like you have double-slotted headstays so you could do quick main changes?         I suppose another reason is that since your main is attached to spars on two edges, you have a lot more control over its shape.  Between the outhaul, cunningham, and mast bend, you can do a heck of a lot to depower the main before you start to think about reefing it.  Being attached on two edges also makes it more complicated to change, but if you had a loose-footed main (no foot boltrope), I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t have two clew outhauls, two main tack fittings, two main halyards, and a double slot up the back edge of the mast.         Jibs have to come up and down a lot anyway, when you put a spinnaker up and down.  Given that you’ve already figured out how to get the jib up and down easily for spin sets/douses, you’ve already done most of the work to figure out how to do jib changes.         Given all that, well, yes, we do carry two mains.  One’s our racing main, the other our old cruising main.  But that’s not really what you were asking, was it?  We certainly never do mainsail changes underway.         You don’t count a storm trysail as a second main, do you? — Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA "This never happened to Bart Simpson."

Response:

Some people do indeed have several mains. The Americas cup boats had 3 mains (light, medium, and heavy). Maybe some one design sailors (like wealthy J24s) may have a few serious mains. I don’t mean the current main, and an old main.

        Of course you could take it to the logical extreme ala 18 footers which have 3 different mains AND masts to deal with the rigs — |    \ /// "Computer programmers were put on Earth to make accountants |

Response:

Some people do indeed have several mains. The Americas cup boats had 3 mains (light, medium, and heavy). Maybe some one design sailors (like wealthy J24s) may have a few serious mains. I don’t mean the current main, and an old main.    Of course you could take it to the logical extreme ala 18 footers which have 3 different mains AND masts to deal with the rigs —

Sounds to me like you really want a sailboard (they go faster too!) chad — chad

Response:

… It is not possible to reef a loose footed sail!

Not so.  I used to have a heavy #2 (140%) jib with two sets of reef points.  One set just raised the clew; the other set also shortened the luff. It was a pretty cool sail, and it worked rather well. I know a number of people who reccommend reefing jibs over roller furling for reasons of simplicity and reliability.  I tend to agree with them.  Roller furling is easy and can be done from the cockpit, but it has a number of disadvantages, sail shape and mechanical failure–having one unwind in a blow sounds pretty hairy.  Reefing does require someone to get up on the pointy end of the boat, but it’s simple and requires no additional mechanicals–if, after reefing, you want to, or have to, change sails, it is much easier than with roller furling. — Ben Hewlett-Packard Company | {backbone}!hplabs!hp-pcd!ben | UUCP 1000 N.E. Circle        | (USA) (503) 752-7811         | FAX Corvallis, OR 97330     | (USA) (503) 757-2000         | VOICE                      All relevant disclaimers apply.

Response:

   I have never understood why boats may carry half-a-dozen foresails

I thought only schooners carried any fores’ls. Greg

Response:

   I have never understood why boats may carry half-a-dozen foresails I thought only schooners carried any fores’ls. Greg

I don’t know much about schooners (except the names of the seven masts), but a foresail is the lowest square sail on the foremast, i.e., the fore course. I think Francis meant "headsails". Mainsails were changed whenever they blew out on the old squareriggers. On a modern sloop, changing a main is not advisable, since sails usually need changing in heavy weather. Putting up a new main under such conditions would be downright dangerous. Better to simply reef. In racing, jibs can be changed "on the fly" with a double-groove headfoil. During most round-the-buoys races of 2-3 hours, taking the time to shift the main would be fatal. Besides, it’s illegal. I have a 100% North jib from a Moore 24 that is set up for reefing: extra tack and clew with reinforcements and even cringles for reef points! I’ve been meaning to try it out, and will one of these days. Stefan Michalowski

Response:

It is my understanding of the racing rules that the main may not be changed during a race.  Hence the racers don’t do it–hence no one else does  They’re also much more involved to change than a jib (outhauls, cunninghams, reefing lines, etc). If you want to count a trysail as a main, many people do carry and some even have opportunity to change down to any ultra-heavy main . — Ben

Response:

(Francis Muir) says: I have never understood why boats may carry half-a-dozen foresails which are slipped up and down more often than a bride’s nightie, but the poor old main just gets reefed. I know custom die hard in the yotty world, but does it really make sense not to carry and use at least two mains?                                        Curious

Some people do indeed have several mains. The Americas cup boats had 3 mains (light, medium, and heavy). Maybe some one design sailors (like wealthy J24s) may have a few serious mains. I don’t mean the current main, and an old main. The main is designed to be a pretty flexible sail. Using controls available (on a bendy mast at least), you can make some pretty substantial changes to it’s shape.

Response:

| I have never understood why boats may carry half-a-dozen foresails | which are slipped up and down more often than a bride’s nightie, but | the poor old main just gets reefed. I know custom die hard in the | yotty world, but does it really make sense not to carry and use at least | two mains? | |                                   Curious Well, it is almost certainly because a club footed sail is much easier to control (shape and sail area, that is).  Traditionally, the multiple headsails come from the need to match sail area to wind conditions.  It is not possible to reef a loose footed sail! However, a club foted sail like a main is easy to reef. Two modern day caveats:   1) Roller furling gives the modern day yachtsman a minimum amount of   reefing ability that may be used on a headsail in a pinch, however,   using roller furling in this way will never provide a completely   satisfactory sail shape.   2) The wishbone boom type rigs (such as found on Windsurfers and   nunsuches have their own nifty way to reef…which still wouldn’t work   on a ordinary head sail anyway. —   "Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their kind" -Quine

Response:

I have never understood why boats may carry half-a-dozen foresails which are slipped up and down more often than a bride’s nightie, but the poor old main just gets reefed. I know custom die hard in the yotty world, but does it really make sense not to carry and use at least two mains?                                         Curious

Response: