Question:

Amortizing start-up costs over 5 years may be applicable in the US or other countries, but not in Canada so far as I know. I strongly agree that he should get some professional help immediately.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello,  I’ve just incorporated earlier this year, however, I’m just a begginer in accounting (I’m using Simply Accounting). If someone can kindly answer the following questions…  Do I include my incorporation costs in my accounting software & statements, including my name search (NUANS) fee?  Prior to incorporating, I had a logo designed for my incorporated company. Are costs for logo design included in my accounting statements?  And finally, how do I determine values (assets, I guess) for software and my computer for my newly incorporated company, especially since I’ve owned both before incorporating?  Thanks in advance, Dipesh S. all these costs definitely go into the accounting records however some appear to be "start-up" costs and for tax purposes they are amortized over 5 years. The contributed or donated fixed assets and software is handled differently using fair market values and depreciated but since they were "personal" items before the business they also get special tax treatment!    It would be to your financial advantage to have some professional help setting up your business before you get much further —

Response:

Did not know he was located in Canada until I read his later post. — Regards, Mark X Rigotti

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Amortizing start-up costs over 5 years may be applicable in the US or other countries, but not in Canada so far as I know. I strongly agree that he should get some professional help immediately. Hello,  I’ve just incorporated earlier this year, however, I’m just a begginer in accounting (I’m using Simply Accounting). If someone can kindly answer the following questions…  Do I include my incorporation costs in my accounting software & statements, including my name search (NUANS) fee?  Prior to incorporating, I had a logo designed for my incorporated company. Are costs for logo design included in my accounting statements?  And finally, how do I determine values (assets, I guess) for software and my computer for my newly incorporated company, especially since I’ve owned both before incorporating?  Thanks in advance, Dipesh S. all these costs definitely go into the accounting records however some appear to be "start-up" costs and for tax purposes they are amortized over 5 years. The contributed or donated fixed assets and software is handled differently using fair market values and depreciated but since they were "personal" items before the business they also get special tax treatment!    It would be to your financial advantage to have some professional help setting up your business before you get much further —

Response:

Get thyself to a CPA or EA STP (Sooner Than Possible) – specifically one familiar with Sections 351 & 357 of the Internal Revenus Code.  These sections cover the specific circumstances that you find yourself in. Basically, transferring assets and liabilities from personal to a corporation in a tax-free manner. This post does assume that you wish to accomplish this in a TAX FREE manner and not have to recognize DRY INCOME. — Regards, Mark X Rigotti

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello,  I’ve just incorporated earlier this year, however, I’m just a begginer in accounting (I’m using Simply Accounting). If someone can kindly answer the following questions…  Do I include my incorporation costs in my accounting software & statements, including my name search (NUANS) fee?  Prior to incorporating, I had a logo designed for my incorporated company. Are costs for logo design included in my accounting statements?  And finally, how do I determine values (assets, I guess) for software and my computer for my newly incorporated company, especially since I’ve owned both before incorporating?  Thanks in advance, Dipesh S. — Using M2, Opera’s revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello,  I’ve just incorporated earlier this year, however, I’m just a begginer in accounting (I’m using Simply Accounting). If someone can kindly answer the following questions…  Do I include my incorporation costs in my accounting software & statements, including my name search (NUANS) fee?  Prior to incorporating, I had a logo designed for my incorporated company. Are costs for logo design included in my accounting statements?  And finally, how do I determine values (assets, I guess) for software and my computer for my newly incorporated company, especially since I’ve owned both before incorporating?  Thanks in advance, Dipesh S.

all these costs definitely go into the accounting records however some appear to be "start-up" costs and for tax purposes they are amortized over 5 years. The contributed or donated fixed assets and software is handled differently using fair market values and depreciated but since they were "personal" items before the business they also get special tax treatment!    It would be to your financial advantage to have some professional help setting up your business before you get much further —

Response:

Hello,  I’ve just incorporated earlier this year, however, I’m just a begginer in accounting (I’m using Simply Accounting). If someone can kindly answer the following questions…  Do I include my incorporation costs in my accounting software & statements, including my name search (NUANS) fee?  Prior to incorporating, I had a logo designed for my incorporated company. Are costs for logo design included in my accounting statements?  And finally, how do I determine values (assets, I guess) for software and my computer for my newly incorporated company, especially since I’ve owned both before incorporating?  Thanks in advance, Dipesh S. — Using M2, Opera’s revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Response:

You may want to tell everyone that you are in Canada or they may give answers that apply in the US but not Canada. Ima Goodlay —– – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hello, I’ve just incorporated earlier this year, however, I’m just a begginer in accounting (I’m using Simply Accounting). If someone can kindly answer the following questions… Do I include my incorporation costs in my accounting software & statements, including my name search (NUANS) fee? Prior to incorporating, I had a logo designed for my incorporated company. Are costs for logo design included in my accounting statements? And finally, how do I determine values (assets, I guess) for software and my computer for my newly incorporated company, especially since I’ve owned both before incorporating? Thanks in advance, Dipesh S. — Using M2, Opera’s revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Response:

Question:

… it’s true.   The Environmentalist Party’s founder, MP Mike Bogatirev, has master degrees in Russian, International Business and Computer Science.   He started the Party in 1983, and currently supports the reform of the California Coastal Commission, to make it an elected committee.   He’s the Environmental Minister of the US Parliament [www.usparliament.org].   Environmentalist Party members may not currently be on the ballot.   Currently, the party is censored by the state.   Really, there are probably less than 100 actual *members* of the Environmentalists … those you speak of are probably Democrats. Cheers, -Jimmy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Environmentalist Party, registered with the FEC as a national party based in Paradise, CA., I assure you that the California Environmentalist Party rejects acts not associated with the peaceful counting of votes. Hogwash. Another E.L.F. arson occured on Saturday.  A condominium was torched causing $20 million dollars damage. See: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YGXKXY5PX50RACRBA… "…The three-alarm fire, which leveled a 200-unit condominium complex that was under construction, caused at least $20 million in damage after it broke out shortly before dawn on Friday. A 12-foot hand-painted banner found on the scene suggested members of the Earth Liberation Front, a network of environmental groups that has claimed responsibility for other fires, had set the blaze. "It does look as we progress on (with the investigation) that the E.L.F. has taken responsibility," said Jan Caldwell, a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Diego. "That does put it in the arena of domestic terrorism." On Saturday, the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper reported it had received an e-mail from the E.L.F. claiming responsibility. The banner found at the site read: "If you build it — we will burn it — the E.L.F.’s are mad."…" [Snip] I’m going to make a prediction here:  I predict that NOT ONE official spokesperson for the Green Party will speak up and condemn this arson. I bet we’ll hear mum from Ralph Nader, in particular. Further, I predict that NOT ONE spokesperson from ANY of the established "Environmentalist" organization will condemn this act.  Why should they start condemning POLITICAL, TERRORISM and VIOLENCE done in their name at this point? Only morons and fools believe that PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, etc., are not aware of who these people are and how to contact them if necessary. Which leads to another prediction:  NOT ONE person from the above mention organizations and the Green Party will come forth and disclose who the perpetrators are. Up to now, nobody has been hurt, except perhaps the insurance companies (and their stockholders) and those who pay the insurance premiums. But should there be a death of a human being as a result of eco-terrorism, you leftists and "Greens" are going to have to ask yourselves some rather pointed questions. 1. Do you (including the "national" environmentalist organizations) want to escalate the federal scrutiny your political organizations will almost certainly come under? 2. Do you want to risk the political backlash that will doom for your lifetimes any chance of becoming part of America’s political mainstream and seeing advancement of your agenda?  The reaction of the American public to the 9/11/01 event ought to be a clue to the depth of anger that you people will be facing, if Americans are killed by other Americans over a political issue.  And something tells me that any mealy-mouthed press release condemning the violence then, will simply be too little, too late for most people, especially when they realized that somebody among you could have prevented the murder by simply turning these thugs in. 3. Do you want to risk opposition political activity directed specifically at the Green Party, PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al.?  Can YOU people stand up to picketing, being shouted down at your rallies, by a public that is enraged at the murderous ways of YOUR associates? 4. Do you want to risk vigilantism and escalating political violence as YOUR associates continue their campaign of terror? You know, the addresses of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al., are in the phone book.  It’s not a stretch to imagine protests and even political action coming directly to their doors, or even following them to their homes.   And, it’s not a stretch to see the Patriot Act used to shut down your "money-makers," because it is not a stretch to imagine the feds walking in and seizing people, computers, accounting data, correspondence and membership lists in order to see *who* among your lobbyists and cash-cows, and "money makers" (e.g.., PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al.) know, know of, or participated in or with, the E.L.F. terrorists. And I can even envision the government using the Patriot Act against the Green Party locals and national offices.  Oh, yeah, it’d probably be unconstitutional — it ought to be unconstitutional to come after a political party.  But by the time your lawyers can find the right official to serve habeas corpus papers, you’ll be long held incommunicado (disappeared, in other words), held as "enemy combatants" or some such nonsense.  And frankly, you’ll have brought it onto yourselves, because there are people in YOUR organization who know EXACTLY who E.L.F. is; who is involved, and who are the specific plotters. Yes, I know that there is a fiction that E.L.F. consists of "cells" (modeled after COMMUNIST PARTY insurgents), and that nobody knows who is in these cells and who coordinates them.  But that *is* a fiction.  Somebody is giving them money.  Somebody is giving them "intelligence." And that "somebody" knows who to contact at the top of the "cell" structure to pass the information along.  You know it.  I know it, and you can be sure that the counter-terrorism boys and girls at the FBI know it too. So, here’s another prediction:  When innocent people are finally murdered by *your* associates in E.L.F., expect to see Ashcroft invoke the Patriot Act to drag your red butts to a "sequestered" facility where you will be sweated for what you know without benefit of an attorney or even a public trial. Oh yeah, your attorneys and those of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al., will all scream bloody murder about "rights" being violated and "due process" withheld.  And you’ll be right — and I’d even protest with you if that happens. But, as some of you *are* accomplices to the eco-terrorism, and have been for years, you’ll find that not even your allies in the media will be able to reshape public opinion in your favor. And that will be the end of the Green party for all practical purposes. Further, it will be the end of your "cash cows," your lobbying organizations, tax exemptions, and any of your "members" who donated money to you or your cause. You people (some of you) are complicit in the activities of E.L.F. You people (most of you) applaud their actions. You people (all of you — all of *us*, actually) share a responsibility to protect each other’s lives.  It’s a natural consequence of living in a Republic, and why we pay taxes. It’s why the preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." If you abdicate in this (as some of you did after 9/11/01), you will have forfeited any claim to "the blessings of liberty" in the eyes of your fellow citizens, because you will have abrogated your part of the social contract. If it comes to this (another prediction), we will have degraded to a 1980’s style insurgent state, rife with both right and left wing death squads, assassinations, and death.  I’d like to point out, at this time, that YOUR side is the one that practices gun control…. Prove me wrong, Greens.  Please. Somebody, anybody, turn in E.L.F., before they kill somebody and it all crashes down on your heads.

Response:

The Environmentalist Party, registered with the FEC as a national party based in Paradise, CA., I assure you that the California Environmentalist Party rejects acts not associated with the peaceful counting of votes.

Hogwash. Another E.L.F. arson occured on Saturday.  A condominium was torched causing $20 million dollars damage. See:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YGXKXY5PX50RACRBA… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "…The three-alarm fire, which leveled a 200-unit condominium complex that was under construction, caused at least $20 million in damage after it broke out shortly before dawn on Friday. A 12-foot hand-painted banner found on the scene suggested members of the Earth Liberation Front, a network of environmental groups that has claimed responsibility for other fires, had set the blaze. "It does look as we progress on (with the investigation) that the E.L.F. has taken responsibility," said Jan Caldwell, a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Diego. "That does put it in the arena of domestic terrorism." On Saturday, the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper reported it had received an e-mail from the E.L.F. claiming responsibility. The banner found at the site read: "If you build it — we will burn it — the E.L.F.’s are mad."…" [Snip] I’m going to make a prediction here:  I predict that NOT ONE official spokesperson for the Green Party will speak up and condemn this arson. I bet we’ll hear mum from Ralph Nader, in particular. Further, I predict that NOT ONE spokesperson from ANY of the established "Environmentalist" organization will condemn this act.  Why should they start condemning POLITICAL, TERRORISM and VIOLENCE done in their name at this point? Only morons and fools believe that PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, etc., are not aware of who these people are and how to contact them if necessary. Which leads to another prediction:  NOT ONE person from the above mention organizations and the Green Party will come forth and disclose who the perpetrators are. Up to now, nobody has been hurt, except perhaps the insurance companies (and their stockholders) and those who pay the insurance premiums. But should there be a death of a human being as a result of eco-terrorism, you leftists and "Greens" are going to have to ask yourselves some rather pointed questions. 1. Do you (including the "national" environmentalist organizations) want to escalate the federal scrutiny your political organizations will almost certainly come under? 2. Do you want to risk the political backlash that will doom for your lifetimes any chance of becoming part of America’s political mainstream and seeing advancement of your agenda?  The reaction of the American public to the 9/11/01 event ought to be a clue to the depth of anger that you people will be facing, if Americans are killed by other Americans over a political issue.  And something tells me that any mealy-mouthed press release condemning the violence then, will simply be too little, too late for most people, especially when they realized that somebody among you could have prevented the murder by simply turning these thugs in. 3. Do you want to risk opposition political activity directed specifically at the Green Party, PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al.?  Can YOU people stand up to picketing, being shouted down at your rallies, by a public that is enraged at the murderous ways of YOUR associates? 4. Do you want to risk vigilantism and escalating political violence as YOUR associates continue their campaign of terror? You know, the addresses of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al., are in the phone book.  It’s not a stretch to imagine protests and even political action coming directly to their doors, or even following them to their homes.   And, it’s not a stretch to see the Patriot Act used to shut down your "money-makers," because it is not a stretch to imagine the feds walking in and seizing people, computers, accounting data, correspondence and membership lists in order to see *who* among your lobbyists and cash-cows, and "money makers" (e.g.., PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al.) know, know of, or participated in or with, the E.L.F. terrorists. And I can even envision the government using the Patriot Act against the Green Party locals and national offices.  Oh, yeah, it’d probably be unconstitutional — it ought to be unconstitutional to come after a political party.  But by the time your lawyers can find the right official to serve habeas corpus papers, you’ll be long held incommunicado (disappeared, in other words), held as "enemy combatants" or some such nonsense.  And frankly, you’ll have brought it onto yourselves, because there are people in YOUR organization who know EXACTLY who E.L.F. is; who is involved, and who are the specific plotters. Yes, I know that there is a fiction that E.L.F. consists of "cells" (modeled after COMMUNIST PARTY insurgents), and that nobody knows who is in these cells and who coordinates them.  But that *is* a fiction.  Somebody is giving them money.  Somebody is giving them "intelligence." And that "somebody" knows who to contact at the top of the "cell" structure to pass the information along.  You know it.  I know it, and you can be sure that the counter-terrorism boys and girls at the FBI know it too. So, here’s another prediction:  When innocent people are finally murdered by *your* associates in E.L.F., expect to see Ashcroft invoke the Patriot Act to drag your red butts to a "sequestered" facility where you will be sweated for what you know without benefit of an attorney or even a public trial. Oh yeah, your attorneys and those of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al., will all scream bloody murder about "rights" being violated and "due process" withheld.  And you’ll be right — and I’d even protest with you if that happens. But, as some of you *are* accomplices to the eco-terrorism, and have been for years, you’ll find that not even your allies in the media will be able to reshape public opinion in your favor. And that will be the end of the Green party for all practical purposes. Further, it will be the end of your "cash cows," your lobbying organizations, tax exemptions, and any of your "members" who donated money to you or your cause. You people (some of you) are complicit in the activities of E.L.F. You people (most of you) applaud their actions. You people (all of you — all of *us*, actually) share a responsibility to protect each other’s lives.  It’s a natural consequence of living in a Republic, and why we pay taxes. It’s why the preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." If you abdicate in this (as some of you did after 9/11/01), you will have forfeited any claim to "the blessings of liberty" in the eyes of your fellow citizens, because you will have abrogated your part of the social contract. If it comes to this (another prediction), we will have degraded to a 1980’s style insurgent state, rife with both right and left wing death squads, assassinations, and death.  I’d like to point out, at this time, that YOUR side is the one that practices gun control…. Prove me wrong, Greens.  Please. Somebody, anybody, turn in E.L.F., before they kill somebody and it all crashes down on your heads.

Response:

The Environmentalist Party, registered with the FEC as a national party based in Paradise, CA., I assure you that the California Environmentalist Party rejects acts not associated with the peaceful counting of votes. We are currently holding a parliamentary vote of confidence with people alligned under a system of PR.   All California residents may participate by voting by 8/5/03 at www.usparliament.org/votehere.htm MP J. www.usparliament.org – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Another E.L.F. arson occured on Saturday.  A condominium was torched causing $20 million dollars damage. See: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YGXKXY5PX50RACRBA… "…The three-alarm fire, which leveled a 200-unit condominium complex that was under construction, caused at least $20 million in damage after it broke out shortly before dawn on Friday. A 12-foot hand-painted banner found on the scene suggested members of the Earth Liberation Front, a network of environmental groups that has claimed responsibility for other fires, had set the blaze. "It does look as we progress on (with the investigation) that the E.L.F. has taken responsibility," said Jan Caldwell, a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Diego. "That does put it in the arena of domestic terrorism." On Saturday, the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper reported it had received an e-mail from the E.L.F. claiming responsibility. The banner found at the site read: "If you build it — we will burn it — the E.L.F.’s are mad."…" [Snip] I’m going to make a prediction here:  I predict that NOT ONE official spokesperson for the Green Party will speak up and condemn this arson. I bet we’ll hear mum from Ralph Nader, in particular. Further, I predict that NOT ONE spokesperson from ANY of the established "Environmentalist" organization will condemn this act.  Why should they start condemning POLITICAL, TERRORISM and VIOLENCE done in their name at this point? Only morons and fools believe that PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, etc., are not aware of who these people are and how to contact them if necessary. Which leads to another prediction:  NOT ONE person from the above mention organizations and the Green Party will come forth and disclose who the perpetrators are. Up to now, nobody has been hurt, except perhaps the insurance companies (and their stockholders) and those who pay the insurance premiums. But should there be a death of a human being as a result of eco-terrorism, you leftists and "Greens" are going to have to ask yourselves some rather pointed questions. 1. Do you (including the "national" environmentalist organizations) want to escalate the federal scrutiny your political organizations will almost certainly come under? 2. Do you want to risk the political backlash that will doom for your lifetimes any chance of becoming part of America’s political mainstream and seeing advancement of your agenda?  The reaction of the American public to the 9/11/01 event ought to be a clue to the depth of anger that you people will be facing, if Americans are killed by other Americans over a political issue.  And something tells me that any mealy-mouthed press release condemning the violence then, will simply be too little, too late for most people, especially when they realized that somebody among you could have prevented the murder by simply turning these thugs in. 3. Do you want to risk opposition political activity directed specifically at the Green Party, PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al.?  Can YOU people stand up to picketing, being shouted down at your rallies, by a public that is enraged at the murderous ways of YOUR associates? 4. Do you want to risk vigilantism and escalating political violence as YOUR associates continue their campaign of terror? You know, the addresses of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al., are in the phone book.  It’s not a stretch to imagine protests and even political action coming directly to their doors, or even following them to their homes.   And, it’s not a stretch to see the Patriot Act used to shut down your "money-makers," because it is not a stretch to imagine the feds walking in and seizing people, computers, accounting data, correspondence and membership lists in order to see *who* among your lobbyists and cash-cows, and "money makers" (e.g.., PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al.) know, know of, or participated in or with, the E.L.F. terrorists. And I can even envision the government using the Patriot Act against the Green Party locals and national offices.  Oh, yeah, it’d probably be unconstitutional — it ought to be unconstitutional to come after a political party.  But by the time your lawyers can find the right official to serve habeas corpus papers, you’ll be long held incommunicado (disappeared, in other words), held as "enemy combatants" or some such nonsense.  And frankly, you’ll have brought it onto yourselves, because there are people in YOUR organization who know EXACTLY who E.L.F. is; who is involved, and who are the specific plotters. Yes, I know that there is a fiction that E.L.F. consists of "cells" (modeled after COMMUNIST PARTY insurgents), and that nobody knows who is in these cells and who coordinates them.  But that *is* a fiction.  Somebody is giving them money.  Somebody is giving them "intelligence." And that "somebody" knows who to contact at the top of the "cell" structure to pass the information along.  You know it.  I know it, and you can be sure that the counter-terrorism boys and girls at the FBI know it too. So, here’s another prediction:  When innocent people are finally murdered by *your* associates in E.L.F., expect to see Ashcroft invoke the Patriot Act to drag your red butts to a "sequestered" facility where you will be sweated for what you know without benefit of an attorney or even a public trial. Oh yeah, your attorneys and those of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al., will all scream bloody murder about "rights" being violated and "due process" withheld.  And you’ll be right — and I’d even protest with you if that happens. But, as some of you *are* accomplices to the eco-terrorism, and have been for years, you’ll find that not even your allies in the media will be able to reshape public opinion in your favor. And that will be the end of the Green party for all practical purposes. Further, it will be the end of your "cash cows," your lobbying organizations, tax exemptions, and any of your "members" who donated money to you or your cause. You people (some of you) are complicit in the activities of E.L.F. You people (most of you) applaud their actions. You people (all of you — all of *us*, actually) share a responsibility to protect each other’s lives.  It’s a natural consequence of living in a Republic, and why we pay taxes. It’s why the preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." If you abdicate in this (as some of you did after 9/11/01), you will have forfeited any claim to "the blessings of liberty" in the eyes of your fellow citizens, because you will have abrogated your part of the social contract. If it comes to this (another prediction), we will have degraded to a 1980’s style insurgent state, rife with both right and left wing death squads, assassinations, and death.  I’d like to point out, at this time, that YOUR side is the one that practices gun control…. Prove me wrong, Greens.  Please. Somebody, anybody, turn in E.L.F., before they kill somebody and it all crashes down on your heads.

Response:

Question:

Lou Gerstner went to chaminade-hs.org, a leading producer of pope-thugs like Senator Al Damnatio! But this is how you pope-thugs molest the truth! This is the Jesuit Casuistry you were trained in. Since Protestant America values Reason, you need your own Universities nd schools where you can teach Jesuit Casuistry and Molesting Mafioso Thuggery instead. No wonder, when your falsely educated pope-nazi scum entered corporate America, they destroyed the pillar of trust on which it was built! ===== Dred Scott written by Catholik Roger Taney. John Wilkes Booth and most of his team were Catholiks (Georgetown Cabal). Guilds were first labor unions created by popes to supress Germany. Joe McCarthy was Catholik. JFK got into Vietnam because pope wanted. Catholiks are least educated Americans. Catholiks shoot Chiapas evangelicals. Hitler was baptised Catholik. Patton prevented hanging of Nazi Pius so Catholik Donovan could use Nazis as basis for CIA. Abortion is Catholik trick to overpopulate themselves. New Orleans was largest Confederate City was Catholik. Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos – Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com

Response:

What would Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, Young, Anderson, and all those other wonderful old Scottish Presbytrian accountants say when they see how the mafioso catholics have overrun their former profession? Lou Gerstner went to the same catholic high school as Al Damnato! Of course, all they have reduced the CPA profession to is Jesuit Casuistry. That is how they were taught. Did you see Giuliani ever prosecute any catholics on Wall Street? But then, how come all the scandals with mafia controlled firms happened after him? Because he used his job to muscle in the mafia! The pope is the mafia. America has now reduced its economy to third-world mafia-fascist standards by turning over our corporations to sleazy catholics like Carly Fiorina and Lou Gerstner. ===== Dred Scott written by Catholik Roger Taney. John Wilkes Booth and most of his team were Catholiks (Georgetown Cabal). Guilds were first labor unions created by popes to supress Germany. Joe McCarthy was Catholik. JFK got into Vietnam because pope wanted. Catholiks are least educated Americans. Catholiks shoot Chiapas evangelicals. Hitler was baptised Catholik. Patton prevented hanging of Nazi Pius so Catholik Donovan could use Nazis as basis for CIA. Abortion is Catholik trick to overpopulate themselves. New Orleans was largest Confederate City was Catholik. Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial – First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com

Response:

Question:

After seeing Peachtree 7.0, I wonder if QB is going to catch up with PT power. I converted from PT to QB several years ago because of the horrible attitude at PT Corp toward customers and accounting accuracy.  Now I am tempted to go back just to get the Inventory Control, Fixed Assets Module and much more detailed history on Customers, Inventory, Vendors, etc. Your thoughts! Dan P. Beckner

Response:

I have both because my clients use both.  I try to do enough work with each so I can at least extract client information from them. A couple years ago I tried QB 5 on a simple but important internal account.  My objective was to learn the program.  I couldn’t do it.  I found myself disliking the program to the point of becoming irrational.  I switched to PT 6.0 and experienced an immediate sense of relief. Since getting QBPRO 99 I have intended to try again – but I haven’t got around to it.  Maybe tomorrow – or next week – or November.  I get bored in November.  On the other hand, maybe I’ll just go ahead and install the PT 7.0 that I’ve had in my in basket for two months and quit torturing myself. Jim Hudspeth, CPA – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – After seeing Peachtree 7.0, I wonder if QB is going to catch up with PT power. I converted from PT to QB several years ago because of the horrible attitude at PT Corp toward customers and accounting accuracy.  Now I am tempted to go back just to get the Inventory Control, Fixed Assets Module and much more detailed history on Customers, Inventory, Vendors, etc. Your thoughts! Dan P. Beckner

Response:

After seeing Peachtree 7.0, I wonder if QB is going to catch up with PT power.

I installed PT7 over top of my existing installation, which has around 20 of my clients’ companies in subdirectories.  I really like this version! It is full 32-bit now, and loads nearly instantly on my NT4 PentiumPro machine. The reports are especially fast now. The older PT4 and PT5 were running 16-bit btrieve engine which made my "modern" 32-bit computer chug and churn, swapping out all the good OLE and COM etc. for the older junk.  It was not too reliable, I got real familiar with the indexing screen over the years. But unfortunately, Peachtree still doesn’t give you drilldown into an account, from the financial statements.  Isn’t that stupid?  In this day and age?  (They only give you drilldown from the account listings, which are rather tedious to start up. ) Nuffa this.  Go to the alt.comp.software.financial.peachtree and read about all the various Plusses and Minuses of Peachtree versus Quickbooks. there were many, many responses to Peachtree’s call for suggestions about 6 onths ago, providing a very clear picture of various shortcomings in case you weren’t aware of them.  Peachtree is still one of the best small ledgers, overall, * Todd F. Boyle CPA    http://www.GLDialtone.com/ * 9745-128th Av NE, Kirkland WA 98033       (425) 827-3107 * XML accounting, web ledger, ASP, GL Dialtone, whatever it takes

Response:

Question:

Are you going to do anything differently with this? This program is already free on the ATO site, the Age Newspaper, professional associations, publishers etc .. Don’t you understand or do you have something special? I have tried to explain to you that they are currently available free, so what makes your different so that peolple would bother buying it? I await your reply. Dr Peter French CMA FTMA AAIBF – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Newsgroups: alt.accounting,misc.taxes Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 9:56 AM Hi ALL I recently wrote a tax payable calculator and i am considering marketing this product. E-mail for a free trial copy, if you are interested. i will welcome any comments you can deliver on enhancing this product to assist yourselves and other tax agents. it is endeavoured, depending on feedback received, that future versions will also contain a medicare levy section. should you have any queries do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. thankyou Chandran M Nadason (remove the ‘nospam’)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi ALL i recently wrote a tax payable calculator and i am considering marketing this product. E-mail for a free trial copy, if you are interested. i will welcome any comments you can deliver on enhancing this product to assist yourselves and other tax agents. it is endeavoured, depending on feedback received, that future versions will also contain a medicare levy section. should you have any queries do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. thankyou Chandran M Nadason (remove the ‘nospam’)

Response:

Question:

I was a finance major, originally, who ended up working in the accounting world.  Ask yourself what do you want to do.  There are many options. Finance is more related to investment analysis.  Accounting is more related to external reporting and auditing.  My personal favorite is managerial accounting, which is focused more on internal reporting and analysis.  You can get there from either path, but if you choose the Big 5 route, accounting is your ticket.  I repeat, talk to a lot of people, choose what you want to do.  Good Luck. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i need help with a project i have for school..if anyone can help plz let me know.. here is the project…earlier this year i had an interview with an internal auditor who graduated w/ a finance degree and later went back and received his accounting degree… he told me to change my major from finance to accounting b/c an accounting degree will attain me the exact same jobs as the finance job will..but the finance degree will not attain me the same jobs as an accounting degree will… is this true? can someone add anymore info to help me out w/ this thanks a bunch rl thanks again

Response:

i need help with a project i have for school..if anyone can help plz let me know.. here is the project…earlier this year i had an interview with an internal auditor who graduated w/ a finance degree and later went back and received his accounting degree… he told me to change my major from finance to accounting b/c an accounting degree will attain me the exact same jobs as the finance job will..but the finance degree will not attain me the same jobs as an accounting degree will… is this true? can someone add anymore info to help me out w/ this thanks a bunch rl thanks again

Response:

Question:

The internet is one of the most cost effective methods to market your accounting firm. If you consider the fact that we can design a web site for as low as $100US, all it would take is one client to pay for your advertising costs. We can help you to develop your site, find a web host and submit it to search engines like Yahoo and Infoseek so that your clients can find you with ease. Come visit our page at http://www.obiedesigns.com or send us an e-mail at Aisha H., Senior Web Designer Obie Designs "Every business makes a statement on the internet…even those who are not on it."

Response:

Come visit our page at http://www.obiedesigns.com or send us an e-mail at

What about adding an online bookkeeping service option and/or a real Virtual Accounting Office to your design package for accountants & bookkeepers? I am looking for VARs to market the INTERbooks Online application {see http://www.foxall.com/util_bks.htm}  *and* The Virtual Accounting Office turnkey website {see http://www.foxall.com/vao_adv.htm} Thx Online Services for Small Business (1) Small Business Bookkeeping Online, http://www.foxall.com/interbooks (2) Web Resources Database, http://www.foxall.com/util_lnk.htm (3) The Virtual Accounting Office, http://www.foxall.com/vao_adv.htm (4) The Virtual Tax Office, http://www.foxall.com/vto_adv.htm (5) Personal Tax Prep Online, http://www.foxall.com/intertax (6) Web design, programming and hosting services, http://www.foxall.com/serv_ndx.htm *** Add your company to our growing database of Small Business Resources on the Web ***               *** It is absolutely FREE so you have nothing to loose ***

Response:

Question:

I use sparkaloid regularly and have had good results mixing 1Tbs in a quart container. Microwave 3 min, Stir thoroughly and microwave another 3 min. Stir and add as you wine is being racked. Do be careful not to inhale it as it is a very fine and easily inhaled powder.I’ve never had acceptable results from bentonite-Just my experience.

Response:

I’m about ready to bottle my first batch of wine, and would appreciate advice on fining techniques/chemicals.  I have some Bentonite, but it seems a somewhat crude method of fining (it’s essentially clay, right?). Also, the label on the Alexander’s kit I’m using mentions Bentonite at the beginning of the process, but recommends using sparkaloid just before bottling.  

Yes it is a somewhat crude but widely used fining agent at this time. It is essentially a "claylike" substance a  hydrated aluminium silicate with exchangeable cations that allows it to bond with unstable proteins that may cause haziness and other problems such as oxidation and associated problems. What are the advantages of sparkaloid and how is it used?  Thanks for anyadvice! Sparkaloid in the context you have suggested may be used as a counterfining agent. Cleaning up any excess bentonite, by aiding in the precipitation and compaction of the bentonite. Kiesolsol or gelatin may also be used, however gelatin has a higher potential risk of overfining. I have never used sparkaloid but the manufacturers instructions should detail the procedure for its use.     (BTW, please excuse any misuse of terminology; my understanding is that "fining" is essentially the same as "clearing"–i.e., getting rid of the cloudy look that wine has at this stage).

Clearing in this context means the same as fining although in my experience it is not a term widely used in winemaking. Clarification and stabilisation are more widely used terms. I would suggest you pick up a book  from a good library (such as; Production Wine Analysis, 1990. Ed./Author Zoecklien, B et al.) if you want to know what fining or clarification you should be doing. In general fining and stabilisatin are the most complex procedures in winemaking due to the number of potential causes of haze in wine and thus the potential number of remedial actions. You should try and establish what is causing the haze, set up a trial with some of your wine and with a range of remedial actions (with differing concentrations of the fining agent) and from the trials decide on what course of action you will take with the rest of your wine, after carefully tasting and viewing the resulting wine (with a torch). All fining agents have adv’s and disadv’s .  for example bentonite may cause excessive lees as well as the loss of flavour and colour compounds, but it tends to be the best agent in terms of overall clarification and stabilisation in wine. Overall be conservative with addition of any fining agents and set up a trial if you do not want the risk of spoiling your precious drops. I hope this is of some help. Regards, Ben

Response:

Bentonite…"crude" ?  "Essentially clay" ?   We’re all essentially clay (see Genesis)  And "Rutherford Dust" adds several dollars a bottle out here in the Napa Valley. Bentonite is what yeast likes to dance with, and in matters of this sort, there is no accounting for taste. Bentonite can be added at any time, before, during or after fermentation. As long as you don’t over do it, so as to strip color and flavor, it is a nice, benign, gentle, basic universal fining agent, often all you need. If it does not do all you want done, then Sparkolloid, which has the opposite electrical charge, is a logical next step. Bentonite is easy to use, can be kept on hand in a slurry of one ounce of dry Bentonite to 28 ounces of water, and does not spoil, since it contains no nutrients. One ounce of the slurry will give you 1 gram of Bentonite  per gallon of wine. Sparkolloid, conversely, is a real pain to use, has to be simmered like soup for 30 minutes, stirred frequently, and added to the wine hot and rapidly. 1/2 to 1 tsp of dry Sparkolloid per gallon is the usual dose.   It also forms fluffy sediment, not the nice compact sticky sediment you get from Bentonite. Careful racking is required, and some lees loss is expected. But it does produce brilliant wine in almost every case, when it follows Bentonite. Greatferm

Response:

I’m about ready to bottle my first batch of wine, and would appreciate advice on fining techniques/chemicals.  I have some Bentonite, but it seems a somewhat crude method of fining (it’s essentially clay, right?). Also, the label on the Alexander’s kit I’m using mentions Bentonite at the beginning of the process, but recommends using sparkaloid just before bottling.   What are the advantages of sparkaloid and how is it used?  Thanks for any advice! (BTW, please excuse any misuse of terminology; my understanding is that "fining" is essentially the same as "clearing"–i.e., getting rid of the cloudy look that wine has at this stage).

Response:

Question:

No, it is *not* the regulations that created the unsafe situation, the idiot at the wheel did.  And maybe the fool who specified a useless light on that boat, but the owner was still responsible.  If he couldn’t see what he was doing, why was he going that fast?   First, I was not discussing the driver of the boat, he was an idiot for going 40 mph with his vision impaired…

Thank you, that is not how your post seemed to read On the other hand, I just bought a brand new boat with lights so I can go out at night. The boat maker designed the lights to meet with all the regulations developed by the experts in the field of boating safety, I go turn them on and I am blinded by them.

Who says that they were designed by experts?  They were placed to meet the letter of the law, for the *least* amount of moeny spend. Period.  They like probably many other things on your brand new boat need fixing/adjustment/redesign before they work correctly.  Sad, but typical, performance. So I am an idiot for going out in this CG, COLREG, etc, etc aproved boat which cannot be operated safely at night.

I didn’t say that you are an idiot, unless you go faster than you can *safely* navigate.  BTW the boat *does not* meet colreg if the lights shine in the helmsperson’s eyes (call the manufacturer, see what they say about that) It might be the fault of the regulations or the fault of the boat makers, but it will change one day. Somebody will sue after death caused by the light scheme on boats. They put them on for night operations did they not? I don’t think it is totally unreasonable for a first time boat buying to expect that the regulation bodies and the boat makers know how to build a proper and safe lighting scheme for my boat.

Oh, good.  Make it someone elses fault and start a lawsuit, just the thing.   It’s not unreasonable to expect a first time boat owner to go to a boating class and learn the applicable laws that deal with the conditions under which that owner will use the boat (same as driving).  Because, regardless of what you buy, when you run it, it’s *your* responsibility to meet the laws, not *anyone* else’s.   The regulations are not at fault (at least colregs) they are consistant and usable.  People all over the world accept them.  And except for the masthead light in your eyes, I expect that you don’t have a problem with them either. I do agree that the builders should put a usable set of lights on a boat before it leaves the factory if it is expected to be used at night.  I suspect that the problem is that everybody wants to be legal at night, but most folks don’t ever use the boat at night, so the manufacturers put the least money into light that they can get away with. Mark

Steve Who thinks that this thread (like too many others lately) has reach the end of its useful life….. Make sure that the lights on your boat are correct for it’s operation, make sure that they work properly, shield them if necessary, no lawsuits, if you don’t like the laws, start lobbying.

Response:

Sorry to be picky, Mark, but the all around white light carried above the red/green nav lights on a power vessel is correctly called a masthead light.  Nautical terms for power boats were derived from sailboat terms, not the other way around.  I don’t think the poster meant the power boat has a mast, although as you know, many power boats have a short mast for this light, in smaller vessels, combined as a flagstaff at the stern. No duh, just data. Michael Dunn – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. Gosh, I would have thought that one shouldn’t go 40 MPH when he is blinded by his masthead light. Duh. Speedboats do not have a mast, those kind of boats are called "sailboats". Duh… Mark Armstrong

Response:

<snip Speedboats do not have a mast, those kind of boats are called "sailboats". Duh…

Yes they do, It’s used for mounting lights and radar and _IS_ called a mast. It just doesn’t hold up sails… Duh… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Mark Armstrong

Response:

Let’s try this again slowly. If those lights are bouncing off something between you and the front of the boat, they are probably not properly installed.  The steaming light is defined as: "A white fixed light over the centerline of the vessel showing an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 225 degrees from dead ahead to 22.5 degrees abaft the bean on either side" Now as a under 40 foot boat, you’re actually given the dispensation that the steaming light can be as far forward as possible and not necesarily on centerline.    - David

David- As long as you are going to be technical, you should point out that there is no light defined in either the Inland Rules or International Rules as a "Steaming Light".  The light that you refer to is properly called a "Masthead Light" and is found on both sail and power boats that operate at night under power.  For reasons unknown to me, the name "Steaming Light" is generally used only by sailboaters to refer to their Masthead Light.                         -Dick-

Response:

Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. Gosh, I would have thought that one shouldn’t go 40 MPH when he is blinded by his masthead light. Duh.

Speedboats do not have a mast, those kind of boats are called "sailboats". Duh… Mark Armstrong

Response:

No, it is *not* the regulations that created the unsafe situation, the idiot at the wheel did.  And maybe the fool who specified a useless light on that boat, but the owner was still responsible.  If he couldn’t see what he was doing, why was he going that fast?  

First, I was not discussing the driver of the boat, he was an idiot for going 40 mph with his vision impaired… On the other hand, I just bought a brand new boat with lights so I can go out at night. The boat maker designed the lights to meet with all the regulations developed by the experts in the field of boating safety, I go turn them on and I am blinded by them. So I am an idiot for going out in this CG, COLREG, etc, etc aproved boat which cannot be operated safely at night. It might be the fault of the regulations or the fault of the boat makers, but it will change one day. Somebody will sue after death caused by the light scheme on boats. They put them on for night operations did they not? I don’t think it is totally unreasonable for a first time boat buying to expect that the regulation bodies and the boat makers know how to build a proper and safe lighting scheme for my boat. Mark

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Many boats around here (SE Michigan) that run at night have covered one or more of their lights because THEY BLIND THE HELMSMAN! The local sheriff’s boat has been observed with the steaming light taped over. Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not drunk). Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small vessels? I am sure a 30′ powerboat or large ship can install a steaming light which does not blind the helmsman, but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman? Mark Armstrong

Yes, you can. A good place for it is over the head of the helmsman (on the center line, of course) with a glare shield to prevent it shining down on the deck or other things on the boat and in the helmsman’s view. The all-round white lights mounted on detachable poles aft are a loser. I prefer separate masthead (i.e., "steaming") light and stern light. Mount the masthead light up high (it must be at least a meter higher than the stern light, even when the bow is tilted up). Jim Maynard, K7KK     Salem, Oregon   "Ignorance is the mother of Adventure."

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, it is *not* the regulations that created the unsafe situation, the idiot at the wheel did.  And maybe the fool who specified a useless light on that boat, but the owner was still responsible.  If he couldn’t see what he was doing, why was he going that fast?   First, I was not discussing the driver of the boat, he was an idiot for going 40 mph with his vision impaired… On the other hand, I just bought a brand new boat with lights so I can go out at night. The boat maker designed the lights to meet with all the regulations developed by the experts in the field of boating safety, I go turn them on and I am blinded by them. So I am an idiot for going out in this CG, COLREG, etc, etc aproved boat which cannot be operated safely at night. It might be the fault of the regulations or the fault of the boat makers, but it will change one day. Somebody will sue after death caused by the light scheme on boats. They put them on for night operations did they not? I don’t think it is totally unreasonable for a first time boat buying to expect that the regulation bodies and the boat makers know how to build a proper and safe lighting scheme for my boat. Mark

Let’s try this again slowly. If those lights are bouncing off something between you and the front of the boat, they are probably not properly installed.  The steaming light is defined as: "A white fixed light over the centerline of the vessel showing an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 225 degrees from dead ahead to 22.5 degrees abaft the bean on either side" Now as a under 40 foot boat, you’re actually given the dispensation that the steaming light can be as far forward as possible and not necesarily on centerline. If you’ve got a beef with anyone, it’s the folks who installed the light so that it either throws light where it doesn’t belong, or placed it with something in between it and the water that reflects the light back at you. The rules are reasonable and can be met with reasonable common sense installations. (I will freely grant that some builders don’t seem to be able to do this last)         – David

Response:

= =Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. =I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not =drunk). = = Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a =bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small =vessels?

        YES!  Without the steaming light, you are showing the lights of a vessel UNDER SAIL. The steaming light can be adjusted.  

        Or modified or moved. On my 19′, the steaming light was on a pole mounted off the stern.  We replaced the one that came with the boat because original height was maybe 1.5 feet with a new one that was 3 or 4 feet long.  

        The white light is supposed to be at least 1 meter above the sidelights, according to the COLREGS. On my 25′ power boat, the steaming light is mounted on a pole on top of the windshield.  There is a neat disk

        This is a "screen" which limits the arc of visability. that is mounted to one side of the light.  Adjust the disk so that the steaming light is not shining into the helmsman’s eyes.

        It should be large enough, and positioned properly, so that no light shines on the cabintop or foredeck.  The sternlight should also be similarly shielded.         I prefer (even on a runabout) to use separate stern and steaming lights mounted so that NOTHING shines on any part of my boat.  (I have to go out and make a special effort to see if they are actually working.)

Response:

Some nights, when it’s cloudy and there’s no moon, it’s so dark on some waters that one really does need the aid of lights to spot other boaters.  Even on brighter nights, it’s easier to track another boat when it has its lights on.  When I’m on the water at night, I am forever fearful of sneaking up on someone running without lights and having to make a very rapid course change.  People are just too hard to see without lights, which is why people probably started putting them on boats.  (I suspect the law requiring running lights came after the practice of carrying them.) I don’t think the presence or absence of the masthead light is really the question here, since a couple of folks complained about the bow lights reflecting off the pulpit. It’s easy enough to fix the reflection problem by putting on sheilding or, as one person did, wrapping non-reflective tape around shiny things.  To me, a vessel that exhibits little signs of seamanship like this looks better than one that does not. People really ought not to be blasting around at 40mph so close to shore that they might hit jetties or piers.  For that matter, people ought not to be going that fast at night under ideal conditions — what about submerged logs?  What about MOBs? — Adrian P. Vrouwenvelder (919) 543-1834 "Pookums"  C22 #12435        These are my opinions; no one else’s.  No one should be                        held liable for these comments or what they might engender.                 If I thought I or anyone else was going to be held liable, I wouldn’t                                 even have posted this.                                    

Response:

No, it is *not* the regulations that created the unsafe situation, the idiot at the wheel did.  And maybe the fool who specified a useless light on that boat, but the owner was still responsible.  

Important point.  The skipper is responsible for the correct installation and display of the lights – not the manufacturer (and some lights are misinstalled so they don’t cover the correct angles). Rental boats may not comply with safety regulations, and you are responsible.  (A boat rental agent once told me vehemently that the out-of-order horn on my rental boat was not a violation!) BTW, both my current and previous boat had steaming lights visible from the flybridge helm.  On this boat, I mounted a loudhailer speaker just above the light, shading the bridge nicely. Walt Bilofsky Golden Phoenix (Cape Dory 30 Poweryacht)

Response:

I have moved or shielded most of the lights on any boats I have ever owned or used regularly. I won’t cover or remove them, but I make VERY sure they don’t shine anywhere but where they are required to shine. Too bad it can’t be done properly at the factory.

I’ve been told of sailbats which arrive from the factory *without a separate switch for the steaming light*.                     Tom Murphy Standard Disclaimer.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I boat on the South Shore of Long Island, probably the busiest boating area in the US. It is amazing how many people boat at night here, given the odds of grounding, if your not careful.  But thats really not the danger. The danger is in the fact the 90% (my estimate) of the boaters at night either don’t show proper lights while under way, or at anchor. Colregs is quite clear that while underway a vessel should show bow and stern lights.  Many of the recreational boats around me show no bow lights, or only one, cover their stern lights with dinghies, or have their mast light bent down and not visible. On the other hand, those at anchor (and there is only one special anchorage area – a cove) show either no lights or all lights. EDUCATION is what is needed, and some enforcement by the CG would be welcomed. Any opinions? — Wayne Spivak SBA  *  Consulting:  Systems for Business & Accounting SBA.NET.WEB:   Internet & World Wide Web Consulting    Tel:  516-221-3306               Fax: 516-221-7129    http://www.ronin.com/SBA – "The Guide to Computer Vendors"

Amen! I often sail at night, and so I am sensitive to the issue of improperly lit boats.  Usually, it’s pleasure boats. The professional mariners usually have their act together, and actually welcome a call on channel 13 (bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone act frequency) to let them know if one of their lights is extinguished. The pleasure boaters often don’t know how to light their vessels, or don’t care. The most frequent offenders I see are: 1.  Sailors who don’t know which lights to show, those for a     power-driven vessel or those for a sailing vessel. Sailboats     with auxiliary engines are equipped to show both lighting     configurations, but their operators often don’t know which     configuration to exhibit.  While under power, they show the     lights of a sailing vessel, or while under sail, they show the     lights of a power driven vessel.     It’s frustrating when, on port tack, I approach a sailboat on     starboard tack that is showing the lights of a power-driven vessel.     If he really _is_ power-driven, then my boat is stand-on and his     is give-way.  But if he’s not using his engine, and is unaware that     his masthead (i.e., "steaming") light on, or doesn’t know that he is     claiming to be power-driven when he exhibits that light, then he     may expect me to give way to him. 2.  The owners of the power-driven runabouts who neglect to insert the     pole that carries the all-round white light that serves as a combination     masthead (i.e., "steaming") light and stern light. They run at 10 or     15 knots or so, showing what looks like the lights of a sailing vessel.     I’ve also seen such a runabout running ahead of a towboat pushing its     tow ahead. Since the idiot isn’t exhibiting a stern light, the operator     of the tug cannot see him. Stupid! 3.  Many power-boaters like to carry their dinghies on their swim platforms.     Unfortunately, this often obscures the stern light.  The people who     know what they are doing will re-mount the stern light in a higher     location, such as aft of the flying bridge.  But many people do _not_     know what they are doing, and leave the stern light obscured. be power-driven by exhibiting that light Jim Maynard, K7KK     Salem, Oregon   "Ignorance is the mother of Adventure."

Response:

Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, {I note that the steaming light helps indicate which boat has right of way] [Mark proposes that the rules be changed: powerboats carry running lights, sailboats carry running lights and a white "non-steaming" light above.]

I think this is a *great* idea, and if you’ll push for the legislation to implement it, I’ll support it as much as I can by voting for it, writing letters, etc.. You’ll want to be certain that the sailboat "non steaming" light is required to be at the *masthead* rather than a mere 2 meters above the running lights, because you will want to be able to see it from both sides, and if you’re to leeward, the job will hide it from you. Furthermore, it’ll shine on the jib and blind the helmsman of the sailboat (which is why, when I’m motorsailing at night under the current regs, I usually furl my jib). You’ll have a tough time getting it passed in all the countries in the world, but great ideas have always met with opposition. If not, then the person at the helm should probably adjust his or her handling of the boat to compensate for the effect. If not, s/he might hit a pier… But then, the operation of a speedboat at night is safe with the proper lighting. It is the regulations that can create an unsafe situation.

The regs do not create an unsafe situation. It’s quite possible, as others have pointed out, to install a shield beneath th steaming light, etc., to keep it out of the helmsman’s eyes. And even if the regs *do* create an unsafe situation for you, they only do so if you go too fast. Putt-putting along at 1 kt, you’re not likely to do a lot of damage. Annoying to you if you want to speed, I know. Seems like a nuisance. Of course, it may save someone’s life, but I can understand that if it limits your fun, it gets you ticked off. Just remember, that pier may be your boat which did happen around here a couple of years ago, a speedboat going 30 mph rammed a sailboat anchored for the night, the sailboat was on its first cruise.

I know that a speedboat may hit my boat. And it worries me. And if the operator says, in his own defense, "I couldn’t see where I was going because that light was in my eyes," I think I might be a bit annoyed. If I were the operator of the speedboat, I’d feel like a complete idiot to even attempt such an explanation. -John

Response:

Ok, then lets switch. A effective steaming light (or use the anchor light which is above the sails) can be installed on a sailboat with little ease. Since most sailboats which sail at night have a steaming light, this would not require any additional equipment (speedboats can just remove their steaming light). So a sailboat will operate with running and steaming light, power boats will only use running lights.

How about commercial vessels? Do container ships keep the steaming light? I hope so, but now you’ve got inconsistent lighting schemes. When does a powerboat require the light? 5m, 10m, 20m? Sailboats and ships with the steaming light, powerboats less than some arbitrary length without it, and general confusion throughout. Besides, these requirements are established by international treaty, and getting all the maritime nations to revisit the COLREGS doesn’t make nearly as much sense as throttling back when visibility is poor. but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman?

If a particular boat cannot be modified in such a way, the operator needs to slow down at night. But then, the operation of a speedboat at night is safe with the proper lighting. It is the regulations that can create an unsafe situation.

No, it’s  not the regulations that cause an unsafe situation, it’s a reckless boater that does so. Speedboating at night can be safe–seamanship is recognizing when it’s not safe. If the operator of the boat can’t see, it’s not safe, and the speed of the boat should be reduced. Just remember, that pier may be your boat which did happen around here a couple of years ago, a speedboat going 30 mph rammed a sailboat anchored for the night, the sailboat was on its first cruise.

Why doesn’t this surprise me?

Response:

: I boat on the South Shore of Long Island, probably the : busiest boating area in the US. : It is amazing how many people boat at night here, : given the odds of grounding, if your not careful.  But : thats really not the danger. : The danger is in the fact the 90% (my estimate) of the : boaters at night either don’t show proper lights while : under way, or at anchor. : Colregs is quite clear that while underway a vessel : should show bow and stern lights.  Many of the : recreational boats around me show no bow lights, or : only one, cover their stern lights with dinghies, or : have their mast light bent down and not visible. : On the other hand, those at anchor (and there is only : one special anchorage area – a cove) show either no : lights or all lights. : EDUCATION is what is needed, and some enforcement by : the CG would be welcomed. What is needed is for the idiots who locate the navigation lights on boats to be required to actually try to pilot a boat at night while they are on. Many boats around here (SE Michigan) that run at night have covered one or more of their lights because THEY BLIND THE HELMSMAN! The local sheriff’s boat has been observed with the steaming light taped over. The lights shine on railings, white decks, spray, wake, and a host of other reflective parts of the boat and its surroundings. Your eyes never get a chance to become dark-adapted. {{Sorry; but you pushed one of my (many) Hot-Buttons there.}} I probably run 50+ hours a year at night, so it is important to me. I have moved or shielded most of the lights on any boats I have ever owned or used regularly. I won’t cover or remove them, but I make VERY sure they don’t shine anywhere but where they are required to shine. Too bad it can’t be done properly at the factory. Colregs requires big boards painted flat black which limit the spread of the side lights on vessels over 20m. They ought to be required on all boats. — "Since at first there was no space,  | Cao Xueqin ca. 1760  Things can have no proper place."   | (tsao schwechin) <I find this a fascinating pre-big-bang cosmology.

Response:

Many boats around here (SE Michigan) that run at night have covered one or more of their lights because THEY BLIND THE HELMSMAN! The local sheriff’s boat has been observed with the steaming light taped over.

Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not drunk). Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small vessels? I am sure a 30′ powerboat or large ship can install a steaming light which does not blind the helmsman, but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman? Mark Armstrong

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I boat on the South Shore of Long Island, probably the : busiest boating area in the US. : It is amazing how many people boat at night here, : given the odds of grounding, if your not careful.  But : thats really not the danger. : The danger is in the fact the 90% (my estimate) of the : boaters at night either don’t show proper lights while : under way, or at anchor. : Colregs is quite clear that while underway a vessel : should show bow and stern lights.  Many of the : recreational boats around me show no bow lights, or : only one, cover their stern lights with dinghies, or : have their mast light bent down and not visible. : On the other hand, those at anchor (and there is only : one special anchorage area – a cove) show either no : lights or all lights. : EDUCATION is what is needed, and some enforcement by : the CG would be welcomed. What is needed is for the idiots who locate the navigation lights on boats to be required to actually try to pilot a boat at night while they are on. Many boats around here (SE Michigan) that run at night have covered one or more of their lights because THEY BLIND THE HELMSMAN! The local sheriff’s boat has been observed with the steaming light taped over. The lights shine on railings, white decks, spray, wake, and a host of other reflective parts of the boat and its surroundings. Your eyes never get a chance to become dark-adapted. {{Sorry; but you pushed one of my (many) Hot-Buttons there.}} I probably run 50+ hours a year at night, so it is important to me. I have moved or shielded most of the lights on any boats I have ever owned or used regularly. I won’t cover or remove them, but I make VERY sure they don’t shine anywhere but where they are required to shine. Too bad it can’t be done properly at the factory. Colregs requires big boards painted flat black which limit the spread of the side lights on vessels over 20m. They ought to be required on all boats. — "Since at first there was no space,  | Cao Xueqin ca. 1760  Things can have no proper place."   | (tsao schwechin) <I find this a fascinating pre-big-bang cosmology.

I agree more with what Pete has said.  On my sailboat the bow light shines on the down tubes of the bow pulpit and reflects off the front tube above the light.  In addition to spoiling your night vision, it makes it kind of hard to hunt for a colored bouy.  I have had to fashion a back-plate to mount behind the light to keep the light off the down tubes, and wrap the front tubes with black handlebar tape.  It works, but looks like hell. — Steve Christensen Ericson 38 "Rag Doll" Bay City, MI

Response:

Gosh, I would have thought that one shouldn’t go 40 MPH when he is blinded by his masthead light. Silly me. Duh.                 -Dick- – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not drunk). Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small vessels? I am sure a 30′ powerboat or large ship can install a steaming light which does not blind the helmsman, but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman? Mark Armstrong

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, It *is* necessary if I want to know which of us has the right of way. If I’m under sail, I’ve got on the bow and stern lights. When I’m under power, the steaming light goes on. Ok, then lets switch. A effective steaming light (or use the anchor light which is above the sails) can be installed on a sailboat with little ease. Since most sailboats which sail at night have a steaming light, this would not require any additional equipment (speedboats can just remove their steaming light). So a sailboat will operate with running and steaming light, power boats will only use running lights.

Wow, change the way light are used on boats *all over the world*, to save some folks from adjusting their lights properly, what an idea! It is usually possible to make a shield to prevent the light from going in the wrong direction from plastic, wood, or sheet metal in just a short time, and for little work. While reflections from the red and green running lights can be a problem, the most common problem is from the unshielded white steaming light on-a-stick that most small power boats have.  Putting a flat disk about 6 – 8" in diameter with a hole in center for the fixture to stick through would solve many people’s glare problems in about 10 min (I’m including 5 for the epxoy to set). but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman?

YES!!!  In fact, not only is it a good idea, it’s the law.  I just checked Chapman’s and screening the masthead light (the regs term for what we commonly call a steaming light) to prevent it’s interference with the pilot’s vision is required *by law* If not, then the person at the helm should probably adjust his or her handling of the boat to compensate for the effect. If not, s/he might hit a pier…

Absolutely! But then, the operation of a speedboat at night is safe with the proper lighting. It is the regulations that can create an unsafe situation. Just remember, that pier may be your boat which did happen around here a couple of years ago, a speedboat going 30 mph rammed a sailboat anchored for the night, the sailboat was on its first cruise.

No, it is *not* the regulations that created the unsafe situation, the idiot at the wheel did.  And maybe the fool who specified a useless light on that boat, but the owner was still responsible.  If he couldn’t see what he was doing, why was he going that fast?   Steve

Response:

[Lights blind the helmsman] Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not drunk).

Wait a minute…they couldn’t see where they were headed because there was a light shining in their eyes, but they kept going 40 MPH???? I think that the problem here is one that’s deeper than the location of navigational lights. Do these folks drive 40 MPH in dense fog or snow too? Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small vessels?

It *is* necessary if I want to know which of us has the right of way. If I’m under sail, I’ve got on the bow and stern lights. When I’m under power, the steaming light goes on. That makes a big difference in the right-of-way laws. I am sure a 30′ powerboat or large ship can install a steaming light which does not blind the helmsman, but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman?

If not, then the person at the helm should probably adjust his or her handling of the boat to compensate for the effect. If not, s/he might hit a pier… -John Hughes

Response:

Have used a white handkerchief and a rubberband to cover the steaming light.  It difuses the light enough to not  bother the helmsman… but lets the light still shine bright enough to be visible to other craft… This solution probably isn’t in Chapman’s…  but what the heck it works!

Response:

Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, It *is* necessary if I want to know which of us has the right of way. If I’m under sail, I’ve got on the bow and stern lights. When I’m under power, the steaming light goes on.

Ok, then lets switch. A effective steaming light (or use the anchor light which is above the sails) can be installed on a sailboat with little ease. Since most sailboats which sail at night have a steaming light, this would not require any additional equipment (speedboats can just remove their steaming light). So a sailboat will operate with running and steaming light, power boats will only use running lights. but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman? If not, then the person at the helm should probably adjust his or her handling of the boat to compensate for the effect. If not, s/he might hit a pier…

But then, the operation of a speedboat at night is safe with the proper lighting. It is the regulations that can create an unsafe situation. Just remember, that pier may be your boat which did happen around here a couple of years ago, a speedboat going 30 mph rammed a sailboat anchored for the night, the sailboat was on its first cruise. Mark Armstrong

Response:

=[Lights blind the helmsman] = =Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. =I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not =drunk). = =Wait a minute…they couldn’t see where they were headed because =there was a light shining in their eyes, but they kept going 40 MPH???? =I think that the problem here is one that’s deeper than the location =of navigational lights. Do these folks drive 40 MPH in dense fog =or snow too? = = Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a =bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small =vessels? The steaming light can be adjusted.  On my 19′, the steaming light was on a pole mounted off the stern.  We replaced the one that came with the boat because original height was maybe 1.5 feet with a new one that was 3 or 4 feet long.  On my 25′ power boat, the steaming light is mounted on a pole on top of the windshield.  There is a neat disk that is mounted to one side of the light.  Adjust the disk so that the steaming light is not shining into the helmsman’s eyes. The worst setup I ever saw was on a 30′ flybridge.  The steaming light was mounted on the cabin roof, right in front of the flybridge.  I could never see much of anything in front of that boat, except for the foredeck (it wasn’t my boat). Mike

Response:

I boat on the South Shore of Long Island, probably the busiest boating area in the US. It is amazing how many people boat at night here, given the odds of grounding, if your not careful.  But thats really not the danger. The danger is in the fact the 90% (my estimate) of the boaters at night either don’t show proper lights while under way, or at anchor. Colregs is quite clear that while underway a vessel should show bow and stern lights.  Many of the recreational boats around me show no bow lights, or only one, cover their stern lights with dinghies, or have their mast light bent down and not visible. On the other hand, those at anchor (and there is only one special anchorage area – a cove) show either no lights or all lights. EDUCATION is what is needed, and some enforcement by the CG would be welcomed. Any opinions? — Wayne Spivak SBA  *  Consulting:  Systems for Business & Accounting SBA.NET.WEB:   Internet & World Wide Web Consulting     Tel:  516-221-3306               Fax: 516-221-7129     http://www.ronin.com/SBA – "The Guide to Computer Vendors"

Response:

Question:

Back on topic (for this group): the original follow-up had asked why such works _were_ so endearing, citing that, if only propaganda, it would not explain why Goerring had not added a new Testament to the list.  This is very important to the activist who may wish to counter or compensate for the efforts of would-be social and environmental architects.

I’ve been following this thread with some interest, and find this particular post even more intriguing.  I’m not sure what your saying wrt the New Testament, wasn’t the Bible, which includes both the old and new Testaments, the first book discussed in this topic? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the underlying theme of all these books the sense of Compassion for our world and the other creatures (human and otherwise) that we share it with?

I have a hard time with this statement.  Don’t each of these books contain at least some passages that cannot possibly be described as compassionate? I suggest that what makes these books important and enduring is that they deal directly with the human condition in all its many aspects.  Further, they are all very old, and therefore they must be both rare and significant if for no other reason than that they are amoung man’s first written words (besides the accounting tables from which writing seems to have developed). Most of the tails are in fact probably much older than from the time that they were first written.  They would have first been part of oral histories, and could be echos of humanities first words and thoughts. What an odd feature for ‘Evolution’ to install and instill in only one of it’s creatures!  How does this idea, which has only global and little local (i.e. personal) benefit, propagate? Why do we not cower in our Own Little Microcosm as our fellow life-forms do?  Why should we seek to temper our species?  More to the point:  Is there a capacity for Activists to unite under a single banner as these books have united the Activists of their own time, or is this a skill lost to antiquity?

What I can agree with is that these books support the idea of community, and that if you want respect or compassion, you must extend the same to others.  On the other hand, in practice, the followers of any of these teachings have at times demonstrated themselves to be quite xenophobic. However, when you look at all of these traditions in the context of our every shrinking modern world the conclusion is clear.  We must learn to have respect and compassion for all the inhabitents of this world if we hope to survive.  Deep thinkers of any time, call them sages or prophets, could see this eventuality long before it became as clear as it is today, and therefore the message of universal compassion and respect is present in these ancient writings as well.  The case that ancient activists were better at achieving unity than modern ones is weak at best.  The reality is that this is a skill that we must invent today, and failure to achieve it will be catastrophic. Gerry Gleason

Response:

says: An entertaining bit of fluff! Perhaps you can also explain why this Book is still in print and will no doubt continue long after your other references have vanished with their authors?  … The Koran has lasted a pretty long time, too.  It will probably continue after you are dust.  Yet somehow I don’t see you trumpeting that as proving the Koran.  I wonder why not? Not to mention the Tao Te Ching; funny how this argument seems to cover Western texts but seems to steal away into the night when some other co-equal civilization gets involved….

        I certainly agree.         And there is another point to be made.         The claim that the Bible will outlive the other books I have invoked is rather unfair to their contents. If the scholarship is sound, then it will outlive the particular expression of it at any one time. Just consider how textbooks go through edition after edition. To take another example, consider how most discussions of the shape of the Earth do not quote Aristotle on that subject, even when they mention him, even though Aristotle was the first person to present a convincing case for the (approximate) sphericity of the Earth, or at least the first person whose statement of that has survived to the present day.         And the same is the case with at least some of what I present about the Bible. To take one origin, the hypothesis of the pagan origin of the virgin-birth story is at least as old as Thomas Paine, who states in _The Age of Reason_ that it is about as convincing as Zeus appearing to Leda as a swan, or to Danae as a shower of gold(!). Randel Helms in _Gospel Fictions_ quotes the early theologian Justin Martyr in _Dialogue with the Jew Trypho_ as complaining that there are some fellow Christians who do not find the virgin birth very convincing, and who even compare it with that episode of Zeus and Danae. So if the hypothesis is sound, it will be put forth by future generations of writers, as the roundness of the Earth has been. Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:

Response:

says: An entertaining bit of fluff! Perhaps you can also explain why this Book is still in print and will no doubt continue long after your other references have vanished with their authors?  … The Koran has lasted a pretty long time, too.  It will probably continue after you are dust.  Yet somehow I don’t see you trumpeting that as proving the Koran.  I wonder why not?

Not to mention the Tao Te Ching; funny how this argument seems to cover Western texts but seems to steal away into the night when some other co-equal civilization gets involved…. Josh Hayes, Zoology Department, Miami University, Oxford OH 45056 voice: 513-529-1679      fax: 513-529-6900 Now look inside; what do you see? That’s easy: that’s a pickle.

Response:

Fisrt, the original poster had left only remarks about particular books of the old and new testament and _this_ is probably the reason why no other books immediately sprang to discussion (but we’ve _corrected_ that now, haven’t we — no one has yet denied the equal stature of the remaining works (nor the equal abiguity Back on topic (for this group): the original follow-up had asked why such works _were_ so endearing, citing that, if only propaganda, it would not explain why Goerring had not added a new Testament to the list.  This is very important to the activist who may wish to counter or compensate for the efforts of would-be social and environmental architects. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the underlying theme of all these books the sense of Compassion for our world and the other creatures (human and otherwise) that we share it with?  What an odd feature for ‘Evolution’ to install and instill in only one of it’s creatures!  How does this idea, which has only global and little local (i.e. personal) benefit, propagate? Why do we not cower in our Own Little Microcosm as our fellow life-forms do?  Why should we seek to temper our species?  More to the point:  Is there a capacity for Activists to unite under a single banner as these books have united the Activists of their own time, or is this a skill lost to antiquity? — o | Gary Murphy   | Cognos Inc.      P.O. Box 9707 Ottawa K1G 3N3     (613) 738-1338 x5537 o | "There are many things which do not concern the process" – Joan of Arc

Response:

An entertaining bit of fluff! Perhaps you can also explain why this Book is still in print and will no doubt continue long after your other references have vanished with their authors?  …

The Koran has lasted a pretty long time, too.  It will probably continue after you are dust.  Yet somehow I don’t see you trumpeting that as proving the Koran.  I wonder why not? — "The cold war is over!  And we won!"     –"Doonesbury", sarcastically, _before_ Eastern Europe fell in 1989….

Response:

An entertaining bit of fluff! Perhaps you can also explain why this Book is still in print and will no doubt continue long after your other references have vanished with their authors?  In all that learned material there must be _some_ clue as to its longevity? (Or is the real basis of the criticism "sour grapes" from a failed would-be-prophet?) I don’t mean to be brash or to wield insult; quite the contrary.  As pointed out in the letter (so long, I dare not quote without remarking on each point, which would without doubt convince no one!), all these points have come and gone before, but the "Song" remains. Some other references you may find useful: Iamblicus, in his "Mysteries" claims the Egyptians had recorded many Noah-like floods.  The gnostic "New Testament Revisited" (there must be thousands of these) claims the New Testament is a _Greek_ book, a transposition of Dionysus from the outlawed greek to the less restricted Hebrew, and hence the bad quotes and the peculiar numerology (I notice you totally ignored the final book), and finally (and also absent from your treatise) the Torah, which may shed some light on how the Bible was constructed. Heartical Iditations! — o | Gary Murphy   | Cognos Inc.      P.O. Box 9707 Ottawa K1G 3N3     (613) 738-1338 x5537 o | "There are many things which do not concern the process" – Joan of Arc

Response:

        Someone e-mailed me about how it might be nice to post my Biblical Satanic Verses here. I came up with them over the last year or so because I was annoyed at how certain "guardians of morality" in our society have manifested a certain blind spot in the direction of a certain book — the Bible (that it is one of their favorite books is perhaps no surprise). I think its contents are very relevant in debates over censorship — if one is to get rid of "immoral" or "indecent" or "offensive" books, then shouldn’t one look at the Bible to see if it would pass muster? My conclusion: there is a lot of it that would fail miserably, by whatever standard one would choose to adopt. So here goes:         I think that it would be helpful to consider how the Bible bangers would react to much of the contents of the Bible, if they judged the Bible by the same standard that they judge other books. I know that this posting may look like like an anti-Bible hatchet job, but when those who blindly worship the Bible indulge in similar hatchet jobs on whatever they do not like, then it is only fair to present them with what may be taken as an anti-Bible hatchet job. Some of the indictments I make here are for things I myself do not consider wicked; but those I criticize would certainly consider them wicked, and that is what counts.         I call what is to come my "Biblical Satanic Verses" because they might seem wicked to many people. Nudity — (Genesis 2) In that garden in Eden, a.k.a. the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were naked.  (1 Samuel 19:24) King Saul strips naked and "prophesies" before Samuel. To someone who does not like the thought of nudity, these may be taken as glorifications of nudity — that being nude is being like that primordial couple and that stripping naked will help one receive messages from God himself. "Indecent exposure" — (Genesis 9) When Noah drank some wine, he got drunk and let his "nakedness" (King James translation) show. Ham got a sight of that and told his two brothers. They cover him up, carefully looking the other way. An angry Noah curses Ham and his innocent son Canaan. (Exodus 20:26) One should not climb upon an altar, because one would then expose oneself to it. Though concern with this question is much like concern with what a Scotsman wears under his kilt, it will be relevant later on when considering whether or not women may wear pants. Dirty dancing(?) — (2 Samuel 11) David watches Bathsheba bathe and falls in love with her. Possible bad example — David wanting Bathsheba and getting her husband Uriah killed; in all fairness, the prophet Nathan made him repent of this tacky action. Incest — The children of Adam and Eve, the first two people (according to the second creation story), had to practice incest in order to produce children of their own. (Genesis 19:32) Lot’s daughters want to produce some heirs, so they make him drunk each night and have sex with him. They become the ancestors of the Ammonites and the Moabites, two groups of people considered very wicked. Sexual exploitation(?) — (Genesis 19) Lot wants to protect two angels from some of the wicked men of Sodom, telling them that they can have his two virgin daughters but not the angels. The angels, however, don’t need that kind of help — they strike the men blind. Why didn’t they tell him in advance, so he does not have to consider letting his daughters be gang-raped? And why does he not break down in tears thereafter when he considers what he had thought of? Sexual suggestiveness (Bible porn?) — the whole Song of Solomon. [it has actually been banned as pornographic when printed separately from the Bible (Vern and Bonnie Bullough: _Sin, Sickness, and Sanity: A History of Sexual Attitudes_)] Just Say No To All Sex (a logical consequence of Bible-banger opposition to sexuality) — (1 Corinthians 7:1, 7:8) Paul became celibate, and recommended that course of action for even those who are married. On marriage, Paul recommended that as a safety valve for those who could not manage celibacy — he was obsessed with the supposed wickedness of "fornication" (Greek _porneia_; properly "prostitution"). Jesus Christ recommends removing parts of one’s body that lead one astray (Matthew 5:29-30); and even states that (Matthew 19:12), along with natural-born eunuchs and those made that way by other people, that "there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven". Thus, we have a "Final Solution of the Sexuality Question" — that one should castrate oneself. He evidently revoked the Old Testament on this subject, which states (Deuteronomy 13:1) that a man who has been castrated or has had his penis cut off cannot be a proper member of the community. Absence of Reference to Masturbation (mentioned because Bible bangers tend to despise this act, even though even many of them perform it) — Nowhere does the Bible mention masturbation; Onan, that famous alleged masturbator, had not masturbated at all, but had pulled it out. This is significant because there is no shortage of denunciations of sexual mischief in the Bible, with the death penalty being prescribed in many cases. Anti-family — It is most likely that Jesus Christ never married. He was a wandering religious prophet, living off the charity of his friends and followers. There is no mention of his wife, if he had been married; the poor woman (if there ever was such a one) seems ignored. He proclaimed (Matthew 10:35-37) that he was going to come and set son against father, daughter against mother, and daughter-in-law against mother-in law, and that whoever loves father or mother than him is not worthy of him. He also proclaimed (Luke 14:26) that if you do not hate your parents, your brothers and sisters, your wife or husband, or your children, you cannot follow him. His mother? When he was 12 years old, he told her (Luke 2:49) "Don’t you know I must be about my Father’s business". At Cana, he told her off (John 2:4) "Woman, what have I to do with you?" Elsewhere (Matthew 12:46-50) he ignores his family — his "real" family is his circle of followers. Anti-divorce (some Bible bangers actually pride themselves on this one) — Jesus Christ laid down the law that a man cannot divorce a woman unless she has been unfaithful (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9); if they remarry, they effectively commit adultery. In the latter reference, after one of his followers suggests that it may be better not to marry, Jesus Christ makes his remarks about eunuchs. The unfaithfulness exception is absent elsewhere (Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18). He had revoked an Old Testament law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) allowing men to divorce their wives if they so see fit. Child Abuse(?) — (Proverbs 13:24) — spare the rod and spoil the child. Polygamy — David had several concubines, (1 Kings 11:3) King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, (2 Chronicles 11:21) King Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines, and (2 Chronicles 13:21) King Abijah had 14 wives. Surrogate motherhood — (Genesis 16:1-4) Since Abraham’s wife Sarah was barren, she gave Abraham her maid Hagar, to have children for her. She produces a son, Ishmael. There is even surrogate fatherhood (the Levirate). (Genesis 38) Onan refuses to have sex with his brother’s widow, and God strikes him with lightning. Obsession with prostitution — Prostitutes are mentioned so many times in the Bible that its authors seem to reveal a fixation on that activity, a fixation that is evident even in those who denounce it. Sexism (it is hard to get a Bible banger on this one, but some of them vehemently deny being sexist) — In Genesis 2, Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden just because Eve was conned into eating that fruit by a certain mischievous snake. In one of the "Ten Commandments" (Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 5:21), one is not supposed to desire one’s neighbor’s land, house, wife, slaves, cattle, donkeys, or anything else of his. Notice how women are lumped in with the rest of a man’s property. Jesus Christ was rather rude to his mother at Cana. Paul states that (1 Corinthians 11) women are to be subject to men in the same way that men are subject to God; that women exist for the sake of men, and not men for the sake of women; that men are the image and glory of God, while women are the image and glory of men; and that women should keep their heads covered to indicate that they are under their husbands’ authority. Women should wear their hair long in order to cover their heads, while men are to keep their hair short; this is because men are the image and glory of God, while women are the image and glory of men. Also, (1 Corinthians 14:34,35) women are to be silent in church, and should let their husbands instruct them. (1 Timothy 2:11,12) Women are supposed to learn and not teach. (1 Peter 3:1-7) Women should submit to their husbands and should look plain; they should call their husbands their masters, as Sarah had called Abraham. Ethical relativism — in the Book of Ecclesiastes (3:2-8), we find that there is a time to do one thing and a time to do just the opposite. Anti-materialism — Jesus Christ’s assertions that material wealth is fundamentally worthless, that (Matthew 6;24) "One cannot serve both God and money", that the love of money is the root of all evil, the one ought to "sell everything one has and give the money to the poor", and (Matthew 19:24) "a camel [or rope] is more likely to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man is to enter the Kingdom of God." Those who value the accumulation of wealth will not appereciate such teachings. Opposition to moral condemnation — Jesus Christ said that one should not pass judgment on others (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-38,41-42), and that one should not call people insulting names (Matthew 5:22). Opposition of displays of piety — Jesus Christ said that you should not try to impress other people with … read more »

Response: