Question:

I am an adult and I hate details.  I can’t handle simple things if they have a lot of details – even simple details.  I can understand complicated, conceptual things easily if the details are fed in slowly.  I can read books about linguistics to grasp the general ideas, but if I have to get coffee for three people and bring it back I get all confused, need to write  down how each one wants the coffee, and just want to refuse to do it. I got great marks in an accounting major in college, but found I could not even begin to do it on the job.  I couldn’t stand the details details.  I hate shopping, hate financial stuff, etc.

Response:

confused, need to write  down how each one wants the coffee, and just

A note pad is helpful, yes. — We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.

Response:

Thanks.  I never heard of a note pad.  That is very deep.

Response:

Question:

It amazes me how far the Judaica Press, JPS, and Stone English editions vary from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures.  How can you let them do that?

The Masoretic text is by definition Hebrew only. You can’t say that any translation is the same, or different. I suppose you could say that one is a more literal translation than another, but more literal translations are not always better. I’m not especially familiar with the specifics of translations, but I know other books from the publishers of the Stone translation and they like giving exegetical explanations. That’s what they’re selling. If you identify any specific issues I’ll be glad to examine them individually, but I don’t have time to even look at lists of 104. I’ve redirected followups to alt.messianic only. jds

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because of David’s sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the consequences of what he did. You guys aren’t even thinking clearly. Atonement is a reconciling of "this" for "that". If you do "this", you then get "that"… there is a payment to reconcile it. NO! This is what atonement means. 1 Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation. Your definition of atonement is totally wrong.

Just use the word "Karma" and you will be spot on.

Response:

I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted. the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn’t die for it. What did they die for then? Make up your mind. Here are your choices: * They died because… just random reasons.

There are no such things as "random reasons" * They dided because of David’s sins.

Yes in one sense, no in the sense that you mean when you say that "y’shu died for people’s sins". Which is it? In your sentence above, you claim both, make up your mind. You said: * The troubles came because of David’s sin. * The people (troubles) didn’t die (happen) because of David’s sin.

[cut to save bandwidth] David SINNNED… God reconciled the SIN, with DEATH of David’s son. Take away David ever having sinned, and what would have happened to David’s kid? eh??? Any ideas? Let’s compare the two results: * SIN = DEATH… the kid died. * NO SIN = LIFE… the kid would have lived on.

No sin, the child would never have been conceived. Why isn’t this OBVIOUS to you?

If someone steps over a cliff, he falls "because" of the "law of gravity".  Actions cause consequences.  Dovid’s sin had consequences which included the death of the child.  The death of the child did not "atone" for the sin.  The atonement was the true and sincere repentance and recognition that he had done wrong.  The child’s death was a consequence, like the death of someone who falls off a cliff during an earthquake. Perhaps the child would have lived if King David had had the extra merit to "use" to save it.  Perhaps it was "destined" to die anyway. Perhaps G-d sent a child who was not destined to live as a punishment for King David (as we are saying).  Note that had King David not sinned, the child would never have been conceived.  Perhaps had King David not sinned, Uriah would have died in the war anyway and he would have married Batsheva then.  Note the commentators state that even though the King gave orders to withdraw from around Uriah, exposing him to death, he actually died *before* those orders were carried out (as shown by the grammar and word order in the original Hebrew). Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did. Mohammed completely blew it… he said NO MAN could die for another’s sins and said point blank that Jesus never died, that all men are responsible for their own sins… yet he forgot about King David’s son dying for King David’s sins… and King David’s men dying for King David’s sins.

No. In that respect he was correct in that there is a difference between responsible and consequences.  For example, the fact that many people have died as a result of the sins of the corrupt leaders of various nations (as in the famines in Africa) does not mean that those deaths were "atonements".  They were consequences. Each man is punished for his own sins and is subject to the laws G-d has set forth for ruling the world.  If a man is murdered, it it the sin of the murderer and the murderer is punished.  The fact that being a victim *MAY* have been the result of some (unknown) sin of the victim is not relevant and does not enter the discussion. If Mohammed had told them the truth, they would have known what to do, and it never would have happened. You guys need to bother to look up the word "atonement" and understand what it means. Claimig TWO things in conflict at the same time, does NOT do much for your argument, other than make it look silly. God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Part one is correct, spart two is false (in the sense that you appear to mean it). — Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"

Response:

In order for God to be content with it being OVER, King David’s sins had to be paid for with King David’s son dying. That payment left God content that it was over.

And also the previous statements before that, those things that God decided and told David through Nathan, all equalized the sin of killing Uriah and taking his wife. Now if that equalization of sins, or reconciling the injustice done to Uriah, a man who loved God and did nothing wrong, yet had his life and wife taken from him while trusting his King… if that atonement wasn’t enough, then God would have piled on all the more punishment on King David… but he didn’t… it was over, the decisions were made by God as to what would pay for the damage the sin caused… and it was then over… that’s why King David immediately got up and got himself all cleaned up, ate, and went to the temple to praise God… he knew then that God’s decisions on the matter, were final, done, complete, it was over. Yet King David himself… he never directly paid for those sins… OTHERS did. Mohammed was clearly wrong, and his being wrong left a billion or more unable to know what to do to end it. God made it all, Jesus died for our sins. Proof God described the planet density profile BEFORE science did: http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis) Mirror site at: http://For-God.net

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, you’re wrong… and so was Mohammed. Read the verses: I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted. the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn’t die for it. Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did. I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because of David’s sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the consequences of what he did. I agree with you Stephen.  The reference cited is in no way an example of atonement.  However, I am compelled to point out (regarding Jan’s comments) that the ability or inability to read Hebrew has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.  The English is just as clear as the Hebrew in that they died as a result of David’s sin, and not as an atonement for David’s sin. There is a subtle degree of spin going on here, as if Jan were trying to say, "if you were able to read Hebrew, you wouldn’t believe in the atonement Christ provided."  That notion is, of course, patently rediculous. Is it? the confusion arises from the fact that ‘for’ may be synonimous with ‘because’ in English this is not so in the Hebrew so it is clearer.

[irrelevent guff on word order snipped] Hebrew is a fine language, and the original languages present us with a more sharply defined, shaded, and contrasted exculpation of the biblical text.  However, in no way, shape, or form is there to be found any differentiation in basic meaning between the (reliable versions in) English, and the originals. there are heaps.

[snip for brevity] There are, of course, other far less reliable English translations; and one can always be found which perverts the meaning and intent of the original language.

Why bother with English translations at all? There are innumerable Christian scholars who are fluent in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Arabic, and more who with full intellectual integrity have continued to believe in the atonement provided by Christ, linguistic skills notwithstanding. I must admit I find this perplexing but there are indicators that the translations are not honest. Do you believe that every Christian which reads Hebrew is dishonest?

Yes! They wouldn’t be Christians otherwise. [snip] So how is it that you read justification for vicarious antonement in the Tanakh.  The Torah speaks against this specifically and plainly in all languages. Certainly.  This will come in three parts.  First I’ll discuss the role of Messiah as High Priest in affecting the atonement of the congregation.

Pointless Messiah will be king not high priest.   Second, I’ll discuss the role of the blood in the atonement,

Also pointless blood is not necessary for atonement the Torah is quite clear on this. and third (the part you seem to object to) I’ll discuss the role of Messiah as the sacrificial lamb in the covering atonement.

Since the above two are pointless this is meaningless. [snip red herring] Of course, the Torah which was recorded by Moses describes the duties, obligations, teachings, and regulations pertaining to the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods, rather than the Melchisedekian priesthood discussed above.

The regulations for the priesthood after the order of Melchitzedek is given in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 This is a red herring too but an interesting one. Nevertheless, it is my believe that the whole Torah is not only in Moses, but the whole of scripture is God’s Torah.  Everything that God has told us is His Torah.  The following is from the Naviim. Daniel relates clearly and without equivocation that Messiah will be cut off, but not for himself:

here is another example of the abovementioned dishonesty.               "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah        be cut off,

It says a messiah there is no definite article (which you have left out but you use messiah as a name – disengenuous it is). It also says will be cut off (yikareth) It is interesting first of all that does not mean that he will be killed (unless referring to something vital being cut off like a head). Secondly when it refers to a person it means separated from his position (or social group) and always in this case refers to someone who is separated because of wrongdoing.  Feel free to apply this to Jesus if you want. Still is was an annointed one and who was an anointed one at that time when the Temple fell but the High Priest who had made a deal for a daily sacrifice on behalf of the Emperor with the Roman Authorites for seven years. It is how he became High Priest after 3.5 years when Florus raided the Temple treasury the sacrifice was suspended. 3.5 years later the Temple was destroyed. but not for himself: since when does "v’ein lo" mean "but not for himself"? It means there will be nothing for him. Without the Temple this is so. The existing Priesthood had usurped the position there is was nothing left for the Saducees whose power base was the Temple. and the people of the        prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the        sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and        unto the end of the war desolations are determined."        Daniel 9:26, KJV. And Isaiah clearly lays out how that the atonement will be made by the sacrifice of a man, and explains why, and for whom Messiah would be cut off:

This text is not related but highlights the dishonesty some more.               "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was        bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace        was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we        like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to        his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of        us all." Isaiah 53:5-6, KJV. FOR our transgressions.  /mipshaenu/.  FOR our iniquities.   /meavonotheynu/.  Not on account of, or because of; but FOR in the meaning of ‘for’ which you objected to earlier.  Which, if that wasn’t clear enough is made even clearer to say that "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

The prepostional prefix ‘mem..’ does not mean mean for it never has ‘lamed’ serves for this. ‘mem..’ abreviated from ‘min’ means ‘from’, ‘of’, ‘because of, ‘rather than’, ’since’ all coneptually related in Hebrew. Translating it as ‘for’ is blatantly dishonest.               "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he        opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the        slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so        he openeth not his mouth." Isaiah 53:7, KJV. HE (remember, this is a human being Isaiah is speaking of here)

Isaiah is predicting what the gentiles will be saying. is brought as a lamb to the slaughter.  Clearly this means a man is being killed; again FOR our iniquities, which were laid on him by God.

No because of the iniquities of the gentiles. Who was sinning when we were marched into the ovens?               "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and        who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out        of the land of the living: for the transgression of my        people was he stricken." Isaiah 53:8, KJV. Again, FOR the transgression /mipesha/ of the people he was stricken.

again because of the transgression that ‘mem’ is there yet again deliberately mistranslated yet again. [snip dealt with elswhere in this thread]

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "psalmsmith" wrote : It is undeniable both in the English and in the Hebrew, that Isaiah : 53:10 predicts that the soul of a man would be offered up for sin.     *Not according to the translations that I study: Yeshayahu 53:10 And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand. (The Judaica Press Complete Tanach) Yisheyah 53:10 Yet it pleased HaShem to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of HaShem might prosper by his hand (Jewish Publication Society Bible) Isaiah 53:10 HaShem desired to oppress him* and He afflicted him; if his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days and the desire of HaShem would succeed in his hand. (The Stone Edition Tanach) *That is, Israel. God replies to the nations that Israel’s suffering was punishment for its own sins; and when the people realize this and repent, they will be redeemed and rewarded. (The Stone Edition Tanach)

Much as I dislike Stone edition in this case it is the closest that still makes sense in English. All of them hearken back into Torah, which is the test of the true prophet see Leviticus 26 it is the same story. What we have is "v” chafetz dakko hecheli" = "but God desired to oppress him with disease" *This is leviticus 26 up to verse 39 im-tasym (3rd person feminine hiphil of sam to set/appoint place if she has appointed )asham naphsho if/when she appoints his soul to be guilty *This is Leviticus 26:40,41 yireh zera he will see his seed. *This is the rest of Leviticus 26. It’s plain in the Hebrew even if the direct translation is clumsy it is also clear how it maps back into Torah or supports Torah which is something prophecy must do according to Deuteronomy 13 to be valid.

Response:

I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted. the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn’t die for it. What did they die for then? Make up your mind.

I have made up my mind don’t be so idiotic as to suggest I haven’t. They died for nothing they died because of Davids sin. It was a waste of life. Kapiche.

Response:

I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because of David’s sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the consequences of what he did. You guys aren’t even thinking clearly. Atonement is a reconciling of "this" for "that". If you do "this", you then get "that"… there is a payment to reconcile it.

NO! This is what atonement means. 1 Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation. Your definition of atonement is totally wrong.

Response:

I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because of David’s sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the consequences of what he did.

You guys aren’t even thinking clearly. Atonement is a reconciling of "this" for "that". If you do "this", you then get "that"… there is a payment to reconcile it. In order for God to be content with it being OVER, King David’s sins had to be paid for with King David’s son dying. That payment left God content that it was over. Why do you think King David got up immediately after hearing about it and got washed off, cleaned up, annointed himself, ate, and then went to the temple to praise God? ??? Any ideas? King David KNEW it was over. The sins were paid off, God was content that it was over… it had been equalized… all generations reading about it, they’d know that King David had sinned and God was then content to leave it once King David’s son had died. You do "this"… here is the "payment" to end it. That’s atonement… reconciling the matter. The same thing happens with Jesus dying, his death pays for the sins of those who believe him. Their profession of faith in Jesus’s dying for their sins, leaves God content that it’s over, the sins are gone, they are not judged for the sins. King David if he was still left with said sin, he’d have been killed… right? King David was not killed… his son was. King David messing up also caused THOUSANDS of his own men to die… they didn’t die for "random reasons", they died because of King David’s sin. Why didn’t Mohammed know it? Why did Mohammed reject what Jesus died for? Why does Daniel 9 say specifically that the messiah would die, but not for himself? Why does Isaiah 53 say specifically that the ARM OF GOD would show up as a man and would die for OTHERS sins? Mohammed told them what left them unable to solve it, unable to forgive, unable to know when they should flee, and when it would be said that the moon shines as the light of the sun, and the sun shines as the light of seven days… when there is a great slaugher, in the hills filled with water, in the day the towers collaps. Over a billion people right now, don’t know what they need to know. And like God said in the New Testament through the prophets, the veil is in front of the Jews eyes… and they won’t see it until God enables them to know it. Until they do, just watch… tell ‘em what they need to know… and watch. God made it all, Jesus died for our sins. Proof God described the planet density profile BEFORE science did: http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis) Mirror site at: http://For-God.net

Response:

I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted. the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn’t die for it.

What did they die for then? Make up your mind. Here are your choices: * They died because… just random reasons. * They dided because of David’s sins. Which is it? In your sentence above, you claim both, make up your mind. You said: * The troubles came because of David’s sin. * The people (troubles) didn’t die (happen) because of David’s sin. Which is it? Unlike your ability to say TWO things at once, both in conflict, I will agree with God:  2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have SINNED against            the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also            hath put away thy SIN; thou shalt not die.         14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great            occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme,            the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. See? David SINNNED… God reconciled the SIN, with DEATH of David’s son. Take away David ever having sinned, and what would have happened to David’s kid? eh??? Any ideas? Let’s compare the two results: * SIN = DEATH… the kid died. * NO SIN = LIFE… the kid would have lived on. Why isn’t this OBVIOUS to you? Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did.

Mohammed completely blew it… he said NO MAN could die for another’s sins and said point blank that Jesus never died, that all men are responsible for their own sins… yet he forgot about King David’s son dying for King David’s sins… and King David’s men dying for King David’s sins. If Mohammed had told them the truth, they would have known what to do, and it never would have happened. You guys need to bother to look up the word "atonement" and understand what it means. Claimig TWO things in conflict at the same time, does NOT do much for your argument, other than make it look silly. God made it all, Jesus died for our sins. Proof God described the planet density profile BEFORE science did: http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis) Mirror site at: http://For-God.net

Response:

"psalmsmith" wrote : It amazes me how far the Judaica Press, JPS, and Stone English editions vary from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures.     *If you believe that to be so, why did you not provide any evidence to support your claim? : How can you let them do that?     *Why do I only see what you claim and no evidence to support it? —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

"psalmsmith" wrote : It amazes me how far the Judaica Press, JPS, and Stone English editions vary from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures.     *If you believe that to be so, why did you not provide any evidence to support your claim? : How can you let them do that?     *Why do I only see what you claim and no evidence to support it?

erm, I posted 104 lines of evidence, with plenty of Hebrew source.

Response:

It amazes me how far the Judaica Press, JPS, and Stone English editions vary from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures.  How can you let them do that? "psalmsmith" wrote : It is undeniable both in the English and in the Hebrew, that Isaiah : 53:10 predicts that the soul of a man would be offered up for sin.     *Not according to the translations that I study: Yeshayahu 53:10 And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand. (The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)

I agree that "wished to crush" is acceptable from the Hebrew, and while "made him ill" is possible, the form of the participle /hecheliy/ leands itself more towards ‘being made weak’ rather than ‘being made ill.’ But here is where we go WAY off the map. "if" is certainly plausable, but /tasiym/ is a trespass offering as found in Vayyiqera ch 5; 6:10; ch 7, ch 14, 19:21-22; Bemidbar ch 5, 6:12, 18:9; and several other pssages.  The only place the context supports "restitution" is in Bemidbar 5:7-8 where the word takes a totally different form: /ashmah/ and /ashamu/ But even this version recognizes that the soul in question is *itself* made the /tasiym/ in question. And again, the "if" is certainly plausable — even likely — as that is the basic meaning of /im/.  But that does not change the meaning.  You see, IF his soul is made a tresspass-offering, THEN he will see his seed prosper, proling his days, etc etc. Yisheyah 53:10 Yet it pleased HaShem to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of HaShem might prosper by his hand (Jewish Publication Society Bible)

Again, "disease" is not supported by that form of the word /chalah/.  It is written as /hecheliy/, and is leant towards weakness or grief.  Given the Hebrew, I would tend more towards ‘weakness’ than ‘grief’ myself. And again, ‘restitution’ is way off the mark.  Even so, we still see the soul offering ITSELF.  Even if restitution did fit the bill, one can make restitution for the nations sin. It certainly cannot be offering "restitution" (for the sake of argument) for itself, or it would violate the context of:              

Question:

Piss off, Spammer, piss off

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –       ARE YOU PROTECTED   NEED MORE SPEED If you think you have cleaned your computer – you are WRONG. They can recover from your PC every single picture or item you have ever watched on the Internet. You need protection. For info of cleaning and speeding up your system, Click Here. http://soz.web1000.com/protect.htm 3GLs

Response:

* * * Follow-up set * * * Noone knows exactly why Grainne Gillespie suddenly blurted: Piss off, Spammer, piss off

         ^                                                                  |       ARE YOU PROTECTED   NEED MORE SPEED                        |                                                                  | If you think you have cleaned your computer – you are WRONG.     |                                                                  | They can recover from your PC every single picture or item you ha| ever watched on the Internet.                                    |                                                                  | You need protection. For info of cleaning and speeding up your sy|                                                                  | Click Here. http://LEMUR.web1000.com/protect.htm                 |                                                                  |

That’s another way to keep people away from your harddisk I suppose. Not that I would recommend it, though… HI ALT.ACCOUNTING! BeH

Response:

Question:

Hey, if I owned a brewpub/resaurant and AB threatened to pull their product, I’d probably hold the door for em! You’d probably say what one pub owner once told me – "Say what you will about Bud but that tap gives me the luxury of affording to keep the good stuff on hand".

There is a German Beer Garden here in Cincy which started in 1865 – Mecklenburg Gardens – that has 16 taps, none of which has ever passed a Budmilloors product.  They probably have Bud, etc. in bottles, but I can’t remember seeing one around being drank. — Dan Listermann Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com Free shipping for orders greater than $35 and East of the Mighty Miss. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tony V. LS6-b "6N"

Response:

Age of drinkers is determined by each state not the federal gov. Feds say min age is 18 but each state has the right to rise the age limit. Some states have 19 for beer and 21 for the hard stuff. Theoretically, you are correct, however the Feds threaten to jerk a state’s highway funds if it does not tow the line.  To my knowledge all states now are 21 for any alcohol.

The Constitution doesn’t give them the right to set a national drinking age so they use extortion instead.  "We won’t give you YOUR money back unless you…."  Of course they could just pass a law and say it effects commerce between the sates and use that as a grounds like they do for most other laws they don’t have the authority to pass.  Not that I’m for or against the 21 year old drinking age but if the Fed’s want to have a national drinking age then they should pass a constitutional amendment to do so. Mike — Process Software                          Phone: 800 722-7770 x369 959 Concord St.                                  508 879-6994 x369 Framingham MA 01701-4682                  FAX:   508 879-0042

Response:

The brewing/ drinking age?  I’ll leave this alone..  I was a kid once, though I don’t endorse underage drinking. To this day, I can’t figure this one out….at 18, a person can vote, buy tobacco, and join the military.  But they can’t beer?  I still have some issues with the gov’t over this (I’m 25 now, btw)…how the hell can we, as Americans, ask somebody to die for this country, and yet not let them have alcohol until they are 21?  I say either up the limits on tobacco, voting and the military, or drop the drinking age down to 18…

The US has a tough time figuring out that a laissez-faire attitude towards "sins" seems to produce much more socially beneficial results than a hard line. Take the war on drugs – those who compare the US’s drug use rate with the Netherlands already know which country’s policy works better. (Not even withstanding the prison-complex solutions the US often uses for social-moral type of problems – on simple usage terms, The Netherlands has a much lower rate.) Sad to say, this extension rolls over to drinking as well, and 21 satisfies the moral teetotaller types to a degree. It’s unfortunate that we have to listen to them. Almost *all* studies show that moderate drinking is considerably more healthy than the anti-alcohol extreme.

Response:

I started a bit early too, though here the drinking age is 18. I think i started brewing a few months earlier than my 18th birthday. Used the same ‘no legal age for buying hops etc..’ logic. And I wasn’t brewing with the intention of brewing Coors et al. Fight the power! John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why is 18 legal to vote and old enough to join the military but not drink? That would be "gubmet logic."  I responded by starting to brew at 18, there being no age limit to purchase yeast, hops, or malted barley (the 80-something HB shop owner and I had a good chuckle over that as I bought my first kit).

Response:

Why not set the Drinking age like 25 or even thirty since most  early 20’s are still immature? Why is 18 legal to vote and old enough to join the military but not drink?

Like I said I’m not for or against the 21 year limit.  I can see pro’s and cons to both sides.  If it was my choice I would have a 16 year drinking age but you couldn’t drive until you were 21. Nothing in the Constitution is clear and precise and every day the Court system can and will interpreted it differently.

That’s why it includes a procedure to amend it.  We should have long ago cleared up a lot of the ambiguities in the Constitution via amendments. Welcome a Democracy.

If we created laws via a democratic process this country would be a scary place! Laws are easier to change and enforce than a Constitutional amendment, but remember those can be changed or repealed, Ever hear of Prohibition?

I have heard of Prohibition and I do understand that laws are easier to change then a Constitutional amendment.  I think currently there are two many laws passed that the government has no right to pass.  Most would probably not be passed by Constitutional amendment either – which is fine with me. — Process Software                          Phone: 800 722-7770 x369 959 Concord St.                                  508 879-6994 x369 Framingham MA 01701-4682                  FAX:   508 879-0042

Response:

Why is 18 legal to vote and old enough to join the military but not drink?

That would be "gubmet logic."  I responded by starting to brew at 18, there being no age limit to purchase yeast, hops, or malted barley (the 80-something HB shop owner and I had a good chuckle over that as I bought my first kit).  

Response:

Age of drinkers is determined by each state not the federal gov. Feds say min age is 18 but each state has the right to rise the age limit. Some states have 19 for beer and 21 for the hard stuff. Theoretically, you are correct, however the Feds threaten to jerk a state’s highway funds if it does not tow the line.  To my knowledge all states now are 21 for any alcohol.

Aint it great that we’re a union of individual states? Individual states that are threatened by the federal governement to comply with their rule, or else. Dunno why we bother to have states anymore… its just one big thing ruled by the central govnernment anyway. Just expressing my annoyance.

Response:

I’m sure you are allowed to buy liquor at a package store on a military reservation if you are 18. At least I did when I was at Ft. Knox. It was a great way to meet STANKY girls from that little town just outside the gate… -Brett – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Limits?  Which limits? Does anyone really look at how much you brew?  I know more then a few people who drink more then you and I brew in a year.  I don’t think the Feds are going to knock on your door and ask for receipts for malts, hops, and such. echoing MKloepster’s and Lord Damax’s responses. The brewing/ drinking age?  I’ll leave this alone..  I was a kid once, though I don’t endorse underage drinking. To this day, I can’t figure this one out….at 18, a person can vote, buy tobacco, and join the military.  But they can’t beer?  I still have some issues with the gov’t over this (I’m 25 now, btw)…how the hell can we, as Americans, ask somebody to die for this country, and yet not let them have alcohol until they are 21?  I say either up the limits on tobacco, voting and the military, or drop the drinking age down to 18… At least, that’s what I think (and yes, I have spoken to Rep. Rehberg about this…he was Lt. Gov of MT at the time). — Joe O’Meara He who drinks beer sleeps well.  He who sleeps well cannot sin.  He who does not sin goes to Heaven.  Amen." — Unkown Monk

Response:

I have worked in many places and I still have to go to places where BUDMILLOORS drinkers made it possible to actually enjoy a  beer from other breweries. Europe is starting to have to fend off BUDMILLOORS. Now if I ever win the Texas Lottery I will be able to do that but until then…….just dreams

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey, if I owned a brewpub/resaurant and AB threatened to pull their product, I’d probably hold the door for em! — Joe O’Meara He who drinks beer sleeps well.  He who sleeps well cannot sin.  He who does not sin goes to Heaven.  Amen." — Unkown Monk The beer distributers are very powerful, and even if you were a licensed brewery (I know a couple who are) you’d find it nearly impossible to get tap space.  AB wouldn’t have to compete.  All they’d have to do is threaten the bar owner with pulling their product.  Guess who’d lose.

Response:

Why not set the Drinking age like 25 or even thirty since most  early 20’s are still immature? Why is 18 legal to vote and old enough to join the military but not drink? Nothing in the Constitution is clear and precise and every day the Court system can and will interpreted it differently. Welcome a Democracy. Laws are easier to change and enforce than a Constitutional amendment, but remember those can be changed or repealed, Ever hear of Prohibition?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Age of drinkers is determined by each state not the federal gov. Feds say min age is 18 but each state has the right to rise the age limit. Some states have 19 for beer and 21 for the hard stuff. Theoretically, you are correct, however the Feds threaten to jerk a state’s highway funds if it does not tow the line.  To my knowledge all states now are 21 for any alcohol. The Constitution doesn’t give them the right to set a national drinking age so they use extortion instead.  "We won’t give you YOUR money back unless you…."  Of course they could just pass a law and say it effects commerce between the sates and use that as a grounds like they do for most other laws they don’t have the authority to pass.  Not that I’m for or against the 21 year old drinking age but if the Fed’s want to have a national drinking age then they should pass a constitutional amendment to do so. Mike —

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Process Software                          Phone: 800 722-7770 x369 959 Concord St.                                  508 879-6994 x369 Framingham MA 01701-4682                  FAX:   508 879-0042

Response:

Hey, if I owned a brewpub/resaurant and AB threatened to pull their product, I’d probably hold the door for em! — Joe O’Meara He who drinks beer sleeps well.  He who sleeps well cannot sin.  He who does not sin goes to Heaven.  Amen." — Unkown Monk – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The beer distributers are very powerful, and even if you were a licensed brewery (I know a couple who are) you’d find it nearly impossible to get tap space.  AB wouldn’t have to compete.  All they’d have to do is threaten the bar owner with pulling their product.  Guess who’d lose.

Response:

Hey, if I owned a brewpub/resaurant and AB threatened to pull their product, I’d probably hold the door for em!

You’d probably say what one pub owner once told me – "Say what you will about Bud but that tap gives me the luxury of affording to keep the good stuff on hand". Tony V. LS6-b "6N"

Response:

Age of drinkers is determined by each state not the federal gov. Feds say min age is 18 but each state has the right to rise the age limit. Some states have 19 for beer and 21 for the hard stuff.

Which ones still split the law? I think none. http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,4565,00.html My understanding (could be wrong) was that if a state did not adopt the 21 drinking age, they would loose Federal road funding.  IIIRC LA was the last to fold, in 1988… Cheers, Mike

Response:

Age of drinkers is determined by each state not the federal gov. Feds say min age is 18 but each state has the right to rise the age limit. Some states have 19 for beer and 21 for the hard stuff.

Theoretically, you are correct, however the Feds threaten to jerk a state’s highway funds if it does not tow the line.  To my knowledge all states now are 21 for any alcohol. — Dan Listermann Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com Free shipping for orders greater than $35 and East of the Mighty Miss.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Limits?  Which limits? Does anyone really look at how much you brew?  I know more then a few  people who drink more then you and I brew in a year.  I don’t think the Feds are going to knock on your door and ask for receipts for malts, hops, and  such. echoing MKloepster’s and Lord Damax’s responses. The brewing/ drinking age?  I’ll leave this alone..  I was a kid once, though I don’t endorse underage drinking. To this day, I can’t figure this one out….at 18, a person can vote, buy tobacco, and join the military.  But they can’t beer?  I still have some issues with the gov’t over this (I’m 25 now, btw)…how the hell can we, as Americans, ask somebody to die for this country, and yet not let them have alcohol until they are 21?  I say either up the limits on tobacco, voting and the military, or drop the drinking age down to 18… At least, that’s what I think (and yes, I have spoken to Rep. Rehberg about this…he was Lt. Gov of MT at the time).

Response:

Age of drinkers is determined by each state not the federal gov. Feds say min age is 18 but each state has the right to rise the age limit. Some states have 19 for beer and 21 for the hard stuff. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Limits?  Which limits? Does anyone really look at how much you brew?  I know more then a few  people who drink more then you and I brew in a year.  I don’t think the Feds are going to knock on your door and ask for receipts for malts, hops, and  such. echoing MKloepster’s and Lord Damax’s responses. The brewing/ drinking age?  I’ll leave this alone..  I was a kid once, though I don’t endorse underage drinking. To this day, I can’t figure this one out….at 18, a person can vote, buy tobacco, and join the military.  But they can’t beer?  I still have some issues with the gov’t over this (I’m 25 now, btw)…how the hell can we, as Americans, ask somebody to die for this country, and yet not let them have alcohol until they are 21?  I say either up the limits on tobacco, voting and the military, or drop the drinking age down to 18… At least, that’s what I think (and yes, I have spoken to Rep. Rehberg about this…he was Lt. Gov of MT at the time).

Response:

Heck, you have that in common with just about everybody who in the homebrewing/microbrewing business!  Right, Listermann?  ;^)  There’s an old joke that can be applied to this: Q: What’s the best way to make a million dollars in the microbrewing business? A: Start with TWO million!

It is a great way to ruin an engineering career as well. . . I toy with a brew pub idea.  I have a great building in a good location with plenty of parking.  I don’t have the time or money to do it.  I don’t want to be a full boogie restaurant with all the stuff that goes with it including their high failure rate, but I would have munchies.  In Ohio it will cost about $7500 a year for a license. I also toy with the microbrewery idea.  It is a tough row to hoe.  There is one in town that is getting along without bottling, but they would do a whole lot better if they did bottle.  Believing that I could get shelf space in the local carry out is fantasy. — Dan Listermann Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com Free shipping for orders greater than $35 and East of the Mighty Miss.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – However, the zero limit on sale of homebrew – now you’re talking.  I would love to see homebrew on tap at my favorite restaurant or even in bottles at the store.  But then the problems would be taxes and more likely profitability.  If there was 30 different brown ales available at the local package store it would drive the price of brown ale down considerably. The same could be said for any style of beer.  It would put a lot of homebrewers out of business in a short time.  You’d likely see AB producing a brown ale to stay competitive and to keep any would-be brewers out of "their" market (doesn’t AB’s Michelob already do something like that? yuck).  Only the big boys with lots of money would win this battle, and the local microbrewers/ brewpubs would seriously suffer.  I doubt most of them have enough money to advertise and compete in the same market as the really big boys. You’d have an easier time convincing the ATF to allow you to sell it tax free than you would getting many bars to carry it.  The beer distributers are very powerful, and even if you were a licensed brewery (I know a couple who are) you’d find it nearly impossible to get tap space.  AB wouldn’t have to compete.  All they’d have to do is threaten the bar owner with pulling their product.  Guess who’d lose. This isn’t just a fantasy.  Where I lived in San Luis Obispo, a local liquor store got into an argument with the Miller distributer (no one I know really knows what the argument was about) and the Miller distributer pulled their products for a couple of years.  You can figure out who hurt the most on that one. Most of the time the nano-breweries that I know of can only get a restaurant to sell the beer, and then only if it’s in bottles, and it’s a small restaurant. In any case, it not that hard to get a license to brew and wholesale beer.  And the license itself it’s not that expensive.  Really, the taxes aren’t all that high either.  You do have to put up with a lot of accounting, and you have to have locked storage for tax-paid product, etc.  But it’s not really that hard. I got the paperwork together and filed way back in the 80’s for this very thing, and it really wasn’t that hard.  I don’t mean as a brewpub–you have to have a restaurant for that.  I mean as a regular brewery.  In the amounts we’d be brewing, you can get special classifications for it.  Now, of course my comments don’t apply in those states with wacky alcohol laws.  I never could figure out why, in Virginia, I couldn’t buy beer at the store on Sunday, and take it home and drink it watching the football game, but I _could_ go to the bar, get ripped, and try to drive home with it in my belly.  Who knows how twisted the laws are in places like that. But in some states, at least, you might find it easier than you think. I don’t brew to get rich… Regards, Mike Sharp

Response:

However, the zero limit on sale of homebrew – now you’re talking.  I would love to see homebrew on tap at my favorite restaurant or even in bottles at the store.  But then the problems would be taxes and more likely profitability.  If there was 30 different brown ales available at the local package store it would drive the price of brown ale down considerably.  The same could be said for any style of beer.  It would put a lot of homebrewers out of business in a short time.  You’d likely see AB producing a brown ale to stay competitive and to keep any would-be brewers out of "their" market (doesn’t AB’s Michelob already do something like that? yuck).  Only the big boys with lots of money would win this battle, and the local microbrewers/ brewpubs would seriously suffer.  I doubt most of them have enough money to advertise and compete in the same market as the really big boys.

You’d have an easier time convincing the ATF to allow you to sell it tax free than you would getting many bars to carry it.  The beer distributers are very powerful, and even if you were a licensed brewery (I know a couple who are) you’d find it nearly impossible to get tap space.  AB wouldn’t have to compete.  All they’d have to do is threaten the bar owner with pulling their product.  Guess who’d lose. This isn’t just a fantasy.  Where I lived in San Luis Obispo, a local liquor store got into an argument with the Miller distributer (no one I know really knows what the argument was about) and the Miller distributer pulled their products for a couple of years.  You can figure out who hurt the most on that one. Most of the time the nano-breweries that I know of can only get a restaurant to sell the beer, and then only if it’s in bottles, and it’s a small restaurant. In any case, it not that hard to get a license to brew and wholesale beer.  And the license itself it’s not that expensive.  Really, the taxes aren’t all that high either.  You do have to put up with a lot of accounting, and you have to have locked storage for tax-paid product, etc.  But it’s not really that hard. I got the paperwork together and filed way back in the 80’s for this very thing, and it really wasn’t that hard.  I don’t mean as a brewpub–you have to have a restaurant for that.  I mean as a regular brewery.  In the amounts we’d be brewing, you can get special classifications for it.  Now, of course my comments don’t apply in those states with wacky alcohol laws.  I never could figure out why, in Virginia, I couldn’t buy beer at the store on Sunday, and take it home and drink it watching the football game, but I _could_ go to the bar, get ripped, and try to drive home with it in my belly.  Who knows how twisted the laws are in places like that. But in some states, at least, you might find it easier than you think. I don’t brew to get rich…

Heck, you have that in common with just about everybody who in the homebrewing/microbrewing business!  Right, Listermann?  ;^)  There’s an old joke that can be applied to this: Q: What’s the best way to make a million dollars in the microbrewing business? A: Start with TWO million! Regards, Mike Sharp

Response:

Limits?  Which limits? Does anyone really look at how much you brew?  I know more then a few people who drink more then you and I brew in a year.  I don’t think the Feds are going to knock on your door and ask for receipts for malts, hops, and such. echoing MKloepster’s and Lord Damax’s responses. The brewing/ drinking age?  I’ll leave this alone..  I was a kid once, though I don’t endorse underage drinking.

To this day, I can’t figure this one out….at 18, a person can vote, buy tobacco, and join the military.  But they can’t beer?  I still have some issues with the gov’t over this (I’m 25 now, btw)…how the hell can we, as Americans, ask somebody to die for this country, and yet not let them have alcohol until they are 21?  I say either up the limits on tobacco, voting and the military, or drop the drinking age down to 18… At least, that’s what I think (and yes, I have spoken to Rep. Rehberg about this…he was Lt. Gov of MT at the time). — Joe O’Meara He who drinks beer sleeps well.  He who sleeps well cannot sin.  He who does not sin goes to Heaven.  Amen." — Unkown Monk

Response:

Americans, ask somebody to die for this country, and yet not let them have alcohol until they are 21?

I know in the Canadian Militia the unwritten rule was "if you are old enough to die for your country, you are old enough to drink for your country" and no matter what age you were you got served at the base. cheers, -Alan

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Limits?  Which limits? Does anyone really look at how much you brew?  I know more then a few people who drink more then you and I brew in a year.  I don’t think the Feds are going to knock on your door and ask for receipts for malts, hops, and such. echoing MKloepster’s and Lord Damax’s responses. The brewing/ drinking age?  I’ll leave this alone..  I was a kid once, though I don’t endorse underage drinking. To this day, I can’t figure this one out….at 18, a person can vote, buy tobacco, and join the military.  But they can’t beer?  I still have some issues with the gov’t over this (I’m 25 now, btw)…how the hell can we, as Americans, ask somebody to die for this country, and yet not let them have alcohol until they are 21?

"Hey Sarge… this assault we’re about to run is pretty dangerous… we might die up there…" "Yes son, thats true." "Man, I sure could use a beer to steady my nerves." "If you survive this battle, maybe in a few years when you turn 21. Now, go fight produly for your country!" I agree. It’s total BS. I think the whole drinking age thing has to do with maturity and whatnot… but I also think a huge part of underage drinking is "I’m not allowed to do it. I’m gonna do it!" I think there’d be less teen binge drinking if they were allowed to do it legally. A huge part of the thrill wouldnt be there. Anyway. Totally off topic, and I dont want to start a war here.

Response:

The 200 gallon limit is, IMO, a paper tiger put in place to keep folks from breaking the law in other ways – i.e.: selling your brew, or in other ways competing with the tax-generating commercial brewer. If I brew 600 gallons, no one is going to be pounding on my door unless I’m doing something else to draw the attention of law enforcement, like selling it, or serving it at regularly scheduled parties in my home where I charge a "cover charge" to get in, etc.  So why put the effort into getting the law repealed, when it would only be enforced when you’re operating outside the law in other ways (unless of course, you just want to be able to stay within the letter of the law). For example, a guy near my town brews his beer in 50 gallon all-grain batches in his yard (man, it’s a sight to behold!) and brews more than 4 batches a year. But he doesn’t sell it, or do anything else outside the law (AFAIK), and has never been bothered by law enforcement. Of course, he and his buddies spend alot of time working at his place, and they drink up alot of brew (although, I don’t know if they consume ALL of it on-site). Admittedly, N=1 is no proof that you won’t get busted for breaking the 200 gallon limit, but it is an example. I say Brew On! David Whitwell Half-Whit Brewing Tacoma, Washington "Because Half the Whits Brew, and Half the Whits Don’t"

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Has anyone tried talking to their senators/reps about getting the limits on homebrewing raised?  I’ve got a pretty good in with US Rep Denny Rehberg, and if I could get some serious backing, I’ll talk to him over a few pints (the man does like good beer!) — Joe O’Meara He who drinks beer sleeps well.  He who sleeps well cannot sin.  He who does not sin goes to Heaven.  Amen." — Unkown Monk I’m not advocating breaking the law, but I’ve always wondered how anybody would ever know how much beer you brew in a given year?  One can buy ingredients for others, or stock up in advance, etc., so I don’t think anyone really spends time tracking how much malted barley Joe O’Meara is buying.   Does the AHA still exist?  They might be able to coordinate a 50-state drive to strike the limits from the books.  There’s no limit to how much you can buy, so who cares how much you brew (as long as you don’t sell it)? Boycott The Body Shop

Response:

Has anyone tried talking to their senators/reps about getting the limits on homebrewing raised?  I’ve got a pretty good in with US Rep Denny Rehberg, and if I could get some serious backing, I’ll talk to him over a few pints (the man does like good beer!) — Joe O’Meara He who drinks beer sleeps well.  He who sleeps well cannot sin.  He who does not sin goes to Heaven.  Amen." — Unkown Monk

I’m not advocating breaking the law, but I’ve always wondered how anybody would ever know how much beer you brew in a given year?  One can buy ingredients for others, or stock up in advance, etc., so I don’t think anyone really spends time tracking how much malted barley Joe O’Meara is buying.   Does the AHA still exist?  They might be able to coordinate a 50-state drive to strike the limits from the books.  There’s no limit to how much you can buy, so who cares how much you brew (as long as you don’t sell it)? Boycott The Body Shop

Response:

Has anyone tried talking to their senators/reps about getting the limits on homebrewing raised?  I’ve got a pretty good in with US Rep Denny Rehberg, and if I could get some serious backing, I’ll talk to him over a few pints (the man does like good beer!)

First, you’ve gotta be a serious brewer and drinker to surpass 200 gallons/year. Not many of us here reach that number. Secondly… anyone here filling out paperwork and sending it into the government reporting the amounts they are brewing? Anyone here had the cops at your door asking for reports on quantity? Sure… no limits would be nice… but its not a fight I have the time for

Response:

Limits?  Which limits? Does anyone really look at how much you brew?  I know more then a few people who drink more then you and I brew in a year.  I don’t think the Feds are going to knock on your door and ask for receipts for malts, hops, and such. echoing MKloepster’s and Lord Damax’s responses.

The brewing/ drinking age?  I’ll leave this alone..  I was a kid once, though I don’t endorse underage drinking. However, the zero limit on sale of homebrew – now you’re talking.  I would love to see homebrew on tap at my favorite restaurant or even in bottles at the store.  But then the problems would be taxes and more likely profitability.  If there was 30 different brown ales available at the local package store it would drive the price of brown ale down considerably.  The same could be said for any style of beer.  It would put a lot of homebrewers out of business in a short time.  You’d likely see AB producing a brown ale to stay competitive and to keep any would-be brewers out of "their" market (doesn’t AB’s Michelob already do something like that? yuck).  Only the big boys with lots of money would win this battle, and the local microbrewers/ brewpubs would seriously suffer.  I doubt most of them have enough money to advertise and compete in the same market as the really big boys. I’d rather give away a case of my homebrew for free – and receive a case of someone else’s homebrew for free – then try to sell it.  I don’t brew to get rich, only to save money and to enjoy and be proud of something that I made with my own spit and sweat.  You probably don’t want a case of my homebrew now… my two cents, Buck

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Has anyone tried talking to their senators/reps about getting the limits on homebrewing raised?  I’ve got a pretty good in with US Rep Denny Rehberg, and if I could get some serious backing, I’ll talk to him over a few pints (the man does like good beer!) — Joe O’Meara He who drinks beer sleeps well.  He who sleeps well cannot sin.  He who does not sin goes to Heaven.  Amen." — Unkown Monk

Response:

Has anyone tried talking to their senators/reps about getting the limits on homebrewing raised?  I’ve got a pretty good in with US Rep Denny Rehberg, and if I could get some serious backing, I’ll talk to him over a few pints (the man does like good beer!) — Joe O’Meara He who drinks beer sleeps well.  He who sleeps well cannot sin.  He who does not sin goes to Heaven.  Amen." — Unkown Monk

Response:

Question:

MS posted the following article in the Hemodialysis Forum http://brumley.com/renal/hemoboard.html Dated  : March 04, 2001 at 23:19:49 Subject: Dry Weight? http://brumley.com/renal/hemomessages/2331.html How can you tell if your Dry Weight needs to be raised?We are currently in a tiff with the dialysis "charge" nurse about raising my Mother’s dry weight.  She doesn’t think that it needs to be changed, but if they take my Mom down to her dry weight she feels bad!  If she comes off at maybe a kilo above she feels much better.  She HAS gained REAL weight since the diet change, but again….the center is insisting that it ISN’T real weight. Any Suggestions? thanks MS

Response:

Celeste posted the following article in the Hemodialysis Forum http://brumley.com/renal/hemoboard.html Dated  : March 05, 2001 at 15:59:06 Subject: Re: Dry Weight? http://brumley.com/renal/hemomessages/2335.html    As long as she is not isn’t getting short of breath then I would keep insisting that they change her weight.  If the charge nurse won’t listen to you then go over her head an demand to speak to your mothers doctor about the problem.  Explain to him that her appetite is better and she is eating more and has gained weight and that they are taking her too low.  This isn’t something to let slide.      The effects of going too low are feeling like crap after treatment, low blood pressure (which can lead to clotting of the graft or fainting) Celeste Kidney 12/7/96 =========================================================================== =========== Carry A Life In Your Pocket, Become An Organ Donor Today!!!!!!! Get Your Organ Donor Card Here ~~~~~~~~~  http://www.TransplantResourcePage.com In the time it takes an average American to commute to and from work — 90 minutes —  someone dies waiting for an organ transplant =========================================================================== =========== Transplant Resource Page http://www.TransplantResourcePage.com

Response:

MS posted the following article in the Hemodialysis Forum http://brumley.com/renal/hemoboard.html Dated  : March 06, 2001 at 23:14:43 Subject: Re: Dry Weight? http://brumley.com/renal/hemomessages/2353.html Thank you both for the replies!!!  We are having a "meeting" with the Doctor and Nurse soon.  I talked to the Doctor and asked him how a dry weight is determined…he said "Trial and Error"…ahhhhh…that’s great.  So, while he’s playing trial and error, my Mum feels like crap.  I asked him what the difference was with HIS doing "trial and error" and keeping her LOW and US doing "trial and error" and having her go a little higher.  I think that’s what triggered the meeting..haha.  There have been a couple of other changes that have helped with the problems, but my Mother has now REFUSED to go any lower than what she thinks she should be at. Thanks again MS

Response:

ME posted the following article in the Hemodialysis Forum http://brumley.com/renal/hemoboard.html Dated  : March 09, 2001 at 08:19:41 Subject: Re: Dry Weight? http://brumley.com/renal/hemomessages/2372.html It’s impossible for anyone to really evaluate over the internet but my suggestion is to involve her nephrologist. He/she has the ability to end the dispute.  If you do not go see her nephrologist regularily please do. Dry weight in some patients can be extremely difficult to evaluate, but how a person feels after dialysis is certainly a big factor in that evaluation. It always distresses me when I hear of an adversarial relationship between patients,family and staff.  We are on the same team with the same goals.

Response:

terry d posted the following article in the Hemodialysis Forum http://brumley.com/renal/hemoboard.html Dated  : March 13, 2001 at 09:42:02 Subject: Re: Dry Weight? http://brumley.com/renal/hemomessages/2398.html I am new to email I hope I do it right.  My son has been on dialyis for over a year.  In the beginning no fluid was taken off of him because he still urintes. At the beginning of last year he developed Stevens-Johnson syndrome from an antibiotic, lost 40 pounds and almost died.  After his weight loss they started taking fluid off, no really accounting for the fact that he survived and had lost so much weight.  It’s over a year now and we are still fighting the battle.  my son is 15.  He still urinates and has regained about 25 pounds of the weight he lost, but he is continually getting sick at the end of his treatment. The other day my husband told the Doctor not to take any fluid off, she agreed, not his usual Doctor, by the way.  He felt great.  Two days later he was 2.2 over his dry weight, my husband said "How much weight are you taking off?", he said 1.5. My son got sick, and we found out the nurses took off 2.5. My hisbank called the Doc and wanted to know why. He said he would discuss it at the next visit, my husband just wanted an answer.  He refused to answer and said it would be disussed at the next visit, and if you wish to transfer your son to another unit, somewhere else, feel free to do so.  Needless to say we are very upset at this point. They told us they have National Standards for weight removal and those standards are what they are going to follow.  If a child complains about not feeling well, they check the blood pressure.  If it is not as low as their standards they will not give them fluid.  I know this is long but I am very angry right now and just wanted to vent.  Thank you.

Response:

MS posted the following article in the Hemodialysis Forum http://brumley.com/renal/hemoboard.html Dated  : March 13, 2001 at 21:44:16 Subject: Re: Dry Weight? http://brumley.com/renal/hemomessages/2410.html I am so sorry that you are experiencing so many problems with your son and his doctor! Although my Mother and I are still battling to have her dry weight changed as well, there have been some changes that have made a difference in how she feels at the end of her treatment. Are you in the United States?  How are the "National Standards" determined?   Why is it such a battle to get the Docs and nurses to understand that people are individuals and are not going to follow their set standards!? There are so many other things to think about with dialysis..it’s a shame that wondering whether the people who are SUPPOSED to be helping you are really doing so or not has become one of those things. All the best to you Terry.  Please post updates about your son. MS

Response:

Terry D. posted the following article in the Hemodialysis Forum http://brumley.com/renal/hemoboard.html Dated  : March 14, 2001 at 16:55:13 Subject: Re: Dry Weight? http://brumley.com/renal/hemomessages/2422.html Thank you for your concern.  I am in the United States and attending one of the leading children’s hospitals , which makes it all the more sad.  This is the only area in the hospital we have ever had any problems.  Today, my son refused to go to Dialysis.  The other day they promised they would only take off 1.5 in fluid, at the end of his treatment he was sick and they had taken off 2.5.  They tried to say the benadryl they gave him to help him sleep made him sick, but last friday they followed my husbands wishes and took no fluid off, with benadryl and he felt great all weekend.  Today the doctor said they may have to transfer him out to another unit somewhere, but we are adamant they he stay there and they treat him as a human being and not part of an assembly line.  I have no idea where this will end, but we are in it all the way.  My son knows when he is not well, and the nurses will not listen to me or him.  As long as his bloodpressure is not below 90/60, they say he is!  fine, it doesn’t matter how he feels. This is causing stress for the whole family.  I do not deal well in these situations, so my husband has been taking off of work to try to resolve this. In the mean time I worry about my son’s emotional frame of mind.  In the beginning his dialysis was great, as soon as they started taking fluid off he started getting sick and this has been going on for over a year. I am so glad things are starting to get on track for your mother.  I think it may be a little easier when it is an adult, as opposed to a child.  We want to do what’s best for our children and tend to believe the doctor’s and nurses, but to constantly see your child get sick, when you know it can be avoided is very upsetting. Oh they also said they were going to call Dyfus on us if he refused to come to dialysis.  Several times over the years they have told me how lucky my son is to have such wonderful parents who are always there for their child,because they have so many children whose parents do not care.  Now because of their policies and refusal to budge on this issue we are the ones neglecting our son.  Go figure. Sorry to take up so much time, it feels to to express it to someone who truly understands.  Unless you are in a situation like this, it’s hard to comprehend. God bless you and your mother, may all be well. ‘

Response:

Sheila posted the following article in the Hemodialysis Forum http://brumley.com/renal/hemoboard.html Dated  : March 15, 2001 at 17:08:15 Subject: Re: Dry Weight? http://brumley.com/renal/hemomessages/2427.html I have just the opposite problem I am not able to keep anything down most of the time since I started dialysis about 5 weeks ago and my dry weight is much lower now I have lost about 30 pounds in the last 6 weeks and I can’t get them to keep adjusting my dry weight.  They will take me down about a kilo and a half and stop even though I had gained almost 4 kilo’s over the weekend between treatments.  I still  feel bloated and can’t get back to feeling better.

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes <SNIP SNIP SNIP Glad to see you taking such a strong interest in my Child, Zenon-Stefan Chmilewsky… most unusual for a mental patient to do so… You don’t have a child anymore. Not what you said before… as "Petro Velykii" as "Pablo." You boasted and enjoyed a Child’s abuse, and LIED repeatedly, deleted etc. and egaged in a number of totally unethical and criminal and civil violations. Peter Velykii is another individual, not me. I am Pablo.  I post as Pablo. I’ve never posted as anyone else, your delusions to the contrary notwithstanding. Please provide me with proof that I have ever done otherwise. AC: IN COURT, *lying*  -gutless-  mental defective _scumbag_! HAHAHA!  I await my summons! You enjoyed Ingrid Eve Runden, MD’s mentally ill, sexual excesses and legal triumphs at the cost of a Child. No, you have it wrong. as you said to me, "Please provide me with proof" Right mental patient? I congratulate her for escaping from your tyranny and abuse.  She is a brave woman. She is a LYING COWARD, that LIED to the Court as did her attorney Paul A. Weeks, of Bangor, ME. No, she simply told the truth.  This is why you lost every step of the way. You are delusional. What do you know of it, save what *I* post? I know a HELL of a lot more than you think I do, Andrew. <SNIP SNIP SNIP

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes x-no-archive: yes <snip I completely agree with you.  No doubt his recent self-disclosure will make its way back to Maine.  Ingy needs all the ammo she can get to protect young Zenon. In order to keep him sexually abused with her sex partners and the people you have posted of …. the unnamed contacts in the State of Maine? No, to protect him from YOU! Not what you said before… as "Petro Velykii" as "Pablo." You boasted and enjoyed a Child’s abuse, and LIED repeatedly, deleted etc. and egaged in a number of totally unethical and criminal and civil violations. Peter Velykii is another individual, not me.  I am Pablo.  I post as Pablo. I’ve never posted as anyone else, your delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.  Please provide me with proof that I have ever done otherwise. You enjoyed Ingrid Eve Runden, MD’s mentally ill, sexual excesses and legal triumphs at the cost of a Child. No, you have it wrong.  I congratulate her for escaping from your tyranny and abuse.  She is a brave woman.  No one should have to put up with living with you. For you are an admitted mental case, taking psychiatric etc. drugs. Again, please direct me to prior posts of mine suggesting such. You are shit. And your opinion counts for nothing.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes <snip I completely agree with you.  No doubt his recent self-disclosure will make its way back to Maine.  Ingy needs all the ammo she can get to protect young Zenon. In order to keep him sexually abused with her sex partners and the people you have posted of …. the unnamed contacts in the State of Maine? No, to protect him from YOU!

Response:

x-no-archive: yes x-no-archive: yes <snip

Gowder, you fat, sloppy mental case…  The truth can’t be "cleverly" "sniped" out, now can it? I don’t even have to _bother_  "snipping" it back in… You are a LOSER like your mentally ill mind. Gowder mental case: I completely agree with you.  No doubt his recent self-disclosure will make its way back to Maine.  Ingy needs all the ammo she can get to protect young Zenon.

AC: In order to keep him sexually abused with her sex partners and the people you have posted of …. the unnamed contacts in the State of Maine?

Gowder mental case: No, to protect him from YOU!

AC: Glad to see you taking such a strong interest in my Child, Zenon-Stefan Chmilewsky… most unusual for a mental patient to do so… AC: Not what you said before… as "Petro Velykii" as "Pablo." You boasted and enjoyed a Child’s abuse, and LIED repeatedly, deleted etc. and egaged in a number of totally unethical and criminal and civil violations.

Gowder mental case: Peter Velykii is another individual, not me.

I am Pablo.  I post as Pablo. I’ve never posted as anyone else,

 your delusions to the contrary notwithstanding. Please provide me with proof that I have ever done

otherwise.

AC: IN COURT, *lying*  -gutless-  mental defective _scumbag_! You enjoyed Ingrid Eve Runden, MD’s mentally ill, sexual excesses and legal triumphs at the cost of a Child.

Gowder mental case: No, you have it wrong.

AC: as you said to me, "Please provide me with proof" Right mental patient? Gowder mental case: I congratulate her for escaping from your tyranny

and abuse.  She is a brave woman.

She is a LYING COWARD, that LIED to the Court as did her attorney Paul A. Weeks, of Bangor, ME. What do you know of it, save what *I* post? Right MENTAL CASE PAUL GOWDER, ESQ? Though you seem to boast of her bizzare sexual activity, don’t you? And she IS, a MENTAL CASE, LIKE YOU… probably why you back her up, of course…. against a "norm." Gowder mental case: No one should have to put up with living with you.

AC You know me? Have lived with me? Or just with another mental case like Hannah Elizabeth Shapere? For you are an admitted mental case, taking psychiatric etc. drugs.

Gowder mental case: Again, please direct me to prior posts of mine suggesting such.

AC You have posted of EATING your psychiatric drugs… haven’t you? OR do you now "forget"? Your girlfriend Hanna Elizabeth Shapere has posted of your psychiatric drug usage, and you have posted of your pot smoking habits, which you denied/lied about, right? You are shit.

Gowder mental case: And your opinion counts for nothing.

AC But the opinion of a loud mouth, proven liar and mental case counts for more? Andrew Chmilewsky Bayonne, NJ

Response:

x-no-archive: yes <snip

Most deceptive "editing" – isn’t it Gowder? Gowder: I completely agree with you.  No doubt his recent self-disclosure will make its way back to Maine.  Ingy needs all the ammo she can get to protect young Zenon.

AC: In order to keep him sexually abused with her sex partners and the people you have posted of …. the unnamed contacts in the State of Maine?

Gowder: No, to protect him from YOU!

You dishonesty, is obvious to all except your fellow liar, mental defective and Child abuser, LindaGore of Los Vegas, Gowder. AC

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes I thought I was the only one naive enough to post to NG using my own name. Once I realized the error of having done so, I figured everyone was smarter than I and no one was posting using their real name, including Andrew. Figures he be foolish enough and such an egomaniac to post his mad ravings under his actual name. This is part of his mental illness.  Among other things, Andrew has poor impulse control. Your saying a lot of what he shared is true, and the post of Irene V Andrew in Livingston NJ all real. Yes indeed.  The civil matter I’m referring to (C-000308-99) was an accounting action in the Superior Court of Essex County, NJ.  Andrew is listed as the debtor.  The judgment date was 1/4/2000, and the amount was $14,800.  This can be verified by his mother’s attorney, John L. Weichsel, Esq. or by a simple request to the court. Speaking of money Andrew owes others, I’ve been wondering if he’s been using his Alex Thurston identity to hide certain assets from prying eyes.  He has consistently refused to comment on the purpose of Thurston’s existence. He certainly owes ME no explanation, but others (e.g., the Social Security Administration, certain attorneys, etc.) might not share this view. I guess it will be easier than I assumed to get the authorities on him. Yes, he is quite reachable.  And he’s left himself wide open by using two identities with the same Social Security number.  Big fat error on his part. I didn’t actually verify anyone was successful in getting his ATT privileges suspended.  I assumed they would soon as it was published that was his ISP. At least one complaint was sent to Worldnet back in October.  Nothing was done about it, but at least it’s on record.  Perhaps if others complain, the e-trail will grow.  Here’s hoping he’ll soon have to fork over money for yet another ISP. Thanks for the helpful info. I am here to serve!  ;-) PS I saw your other post, about his incestous relations with male relatives. I hope the courts having jurisdiction over custody/visitation of his son are made aware of his history of male incest with relatives. I completely agree with you.  No doubt his recent self-disclosure will make its way back to Maine.  Ingy needs all the ammo she can get to protect young Zenon.

In order to keep him sexually abused with her sex partners and the people you have posted of …. the unnamed contacts in the State of Maine?

Response:

<SNIP In order to keep him sexually abused with her sex partners and the people you have posted of …. the unnamed contacts in the State of Maine?

Andrew, Your responses are soooooo pithy and to the point. Ever thought about teaching ? Oh, wait, Maine doesn’t allow convicts to teach does it. — Kitten’s Main Squeeze We live in a technological society that creates many illusions of reality…it’s the most irresponsible behaving entity that ever lived on this planet.  This civilization is not about responsibility, it’s about guilt, sin, blame and aggressive bad behavior.  That is the shadow world… The real world is about fulfilling our responsibility to life. — John Trudell

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <SNIP In order to keep him sexually abused with her sex partners and the people you have posted of …. the unnamed contacts in the State of Maine? Andrew, Your responses are soooooo pithy and to the point. Ever thought about teaching ? It was a school teacher before it went mad and lost his position upon wifey getting treated for her depression, kicking his butt out,  and receiving not only custody of child but an order where the courts prohibited his visitation and his making phone contact. Linda

Yes, the SLUT & Child abuser and attorneys and Judge in that two-bit town behaved most strangely… along with many others… POST THE MEDICAL COMPLAINT… AND THE "KIDNAPPING" claims you made about me in e-mails supposedly of my planning such….. SLUT ! Well… seems like a challenge to me….

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – x-no-archive: yes <snip I completely agree with you.  No doubt his recent self-disclosure will make its way back to Maine.  Ingy needs all the ammo she can get to protect young Zenon. In order to keep him sexually abused with her sex partners and the people you have posted of …. the unnamed contacts in the State of Maine? No, to protect him from YOU!

Not what you said before… as "Petro Velykii" as "Pablo." You boasted and enjoyed a Child’s abuse, and LIED repeatedly, deleted etc. and egaged in a number of totally unethical and criminal and civil violations. You enjoyed Ingrid Eve Runden, MD’s mentally ill, sexual excesses and legal triumphs at the cost of a Child. For you are an admitted mental case, taking psychiatric etc. drugs. You are shit. Andrew Chmilewsky Bayonne, NJ

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Correct me  if i’m wrong but those bills are "Statements Of Accounts" and not an actual "Invoice".  there is a differance between the two.  You could check out www.CrystalClearAccounting.com as this does do both… — Ken Watson Accounting Made Crystal Clear By: www.crystalclearaccounting.com Anyone know of an accounting package that will print the past balace due on invoices? (As all bills I receive do, i.e. phone company, etc).

My phone bill is actually at least two pages. Page one is a statement and page two, etc. is the invoice; it tells me what makes up the "current amount" listed on page. Ciao, Linda B Get all the Canadian & Quebec tax deductions you deserve QuickBooks

Question:

You are a likely candidate for joining our webring.  Please visit http://www.sgilbertcompaniesinc.com/econring.html.  view the instructions and apply.  thanks, mmg — New Ezines and Webring: http://www.sgilbertcompaniesinc.com/econring.html International Economic Webring http://www.marmsweb.com/fulcher/zindex.html Tax Accounting, Insurance and Securities Ezine http://www.sgilbertcompaniesinc.com/sgci/index.html  Finance Leasing Ezine Contributions are welcome. Thanks for listening. mmg For all your business needs http://www.inter-change.com/want.htm

Response:

For all your business needs http://www.inter-change.com/want.htm

Response:

Question:

150 for the exam in oregon, that varies with the state.  My review course (Conviser Duffy) was $1050, but I was able to use a coupon I won through a school function and also get a student discount.  Good luck. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does anyone know how much it costs to take the CPA Exam and any review courses?  Thanks Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Does anyone know how much it costs to take the CPA Exam and any review courses?

Well, there is talk that if the CPA exam is computerized it may cost about $500 and will be initially offered 4 times a year. — Robert J. Romano, CPA Arlington, Massachusetts (781) 648-4966 http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/rjromano

Response:

Well, there is talk that if the CPA exam is computerized it may cost about $500 and will be initially offered 4 times a year.

The new CPA exam being proposed is an interesting exercise. Reportedly the system being developed is being tested to be an excellent predictor of who would ultimately pass the current full blown exam, but to be able to do so in a relatively short period of time.  In theory, candidates would still have to be just as prepared, but the "answer" would come much quicker (an awful lot quicker for those that aren’t at all prepared <grin). — Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ) http://www.getnet.com/~hmtzcpas

Response:

Edward Zollars responded… Well, there is talk that if the CPA exam is computerized it may cost about $500 and will be initially offered 4 times a year. The new CPA exam being proposed is an interesting exercise. Reportedly the system being developed is being tested to be an excellent predictor of who would ultimately pass the current full blown exam, but to be able to do so in a relatively short period of time.

Has anyone here taken the new computerized GMAT as well as the old pencil-and-paper version?  How do they compare? From what I understand, the GMAT now selects questions based on how well the test-taker does on previous questions, so that scores can more accurately reflect the ability level of the person taking the exam.  I believe this structure was designed to quickly and efficiently move into the type of questions appropriate for each bracket of score levels.  I don’t know if the exam takes any less time now. A computerized CPA exam makes sense in the age of spreadsheets; when was the last time you got out a pencil and green ledger paper? Would the "no-calculator" rule still be in effect?  I liked that one; it favored test-takers who were actually good at math (a surprisingly under-rated skill among accountants, IMO).

Response:

Question:

THE BLACK RESOURCE GUIDE A NATIONAL BLACK DIRECTORY ISBN 0-960-8374-93 The BLACK RESOURCE GUIDE is one of the best resources in America on African-Americans. It is the premier national black directory in the country. The book features over 54 categories and identifies the names, addresses and phone numbers of key African-American movers and shakers in the United States. It also contains the latest census data on African Americans. THE AMERICAN REFERENCE BOOK ANNUAL describes the book as "an enormously valuable aid in a wide range of African-American applications". This impressive book includes among others, accountants, architects, business leaders, marketing executives, educators, civil rights leaders, judges, politicians, public administrators, radio and newspaper editors, union leaders and heads of key national black organizations. As a bonus, this multipurpose book also list U.S. based African and Caribbean embassies. It is by far the most sought after black directory in the country. The Black Resource Guide is the book of choice for U.S. libraries and for those looking for resources in the national black community. It is widely used by civil rights leaders, personnel specialists, researchers, politicians and marketing experts. The one thing that the offices of Jesse Jackson, Ronald Reagan, Magic Johnson, George Bush and Jimmy Carter have in common