boycott-riaa.com - Article: Odds and Ends (March 2007)

Odds and Ends (March 2007)

Posted by Mike (Shmoo) on March 30, 2007 at 8:10 PM (printer friendly)

'Odds and Ends' is for the "off-topic" and/or other stuff not covered in other areas here at Boycott Riaa.

However, from now on, please post any of the relevant "quickie news-links" you find at The Digital Music Scene for both Boycott-Riaa's and/or Dmusic's consumption.

(Yup, that means: THIS is an OPEN thread!)

...BUT, I will not tolerate any spam AND I might have to KNOCK HEADS if you become personal and ugly with other Boycott Riaa participants.

DAMNIT, (please) PLAY NICE!!!

(...at least with each other and your frazzled admins.)

--Shmoo

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


independentm...	Date: March 2, 2007 @ 8:14 PM Folks, the previous edition of Odds and Ends can be found here. Tracy, leflaw, Dmusic admin, please avoid putting Odds and Ends on the front page at Dmusic. I have created "The Digital Music Scene" to serve both sites instead.

gdZiemann	Date: March 3, 2007 @ 5:49 PM James Brown died on Christmas Day. Yesterday, they opened up the coffin to do DNA tests. They didn't have to dig him up because he's NOT BURIED YET! That's just wrong. The man deserves to be put to rest.

pepe512000	Date: March 3, 2007 @ 7:50 PM That's ok, they want to dig up anna nicole smith's son for testing AND they want to move him from the Bahamas to Texas, so then mama has a reason to move her daughter (who just got to the Bahamas, I might add) to Texas as well....apparently dead people get around pretty good, compared to live ones...like me. Man, I need a vacation after listening to all this...

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 3:19 PM Here's some things from the inbox: Message: (From Danther) I guess what I don't understand is the vast differences between my generation (60's) and the current college students. Where has the spirit of standing up and doing something about things you feel strongly about gone? There was a time that if you had a grievance, you took action. Often in the form of demonstrations or boycotts. The young people of today have the ultimate power in stopping the RIAA line their own pockets. And that is the power of the purchase. Simply withholding the almighty $ of a relatively short period of time would rock RIAA back on its heels. One semester of refusing to purchase music CDs would have such financial impact on the recording labels (the ultimate beneficiary of those purchases) that there would be immense pressure by them on the RIAA to rethink their strategy of suing everyone that swaps a song. And, it would hardly impact the artists themselves due to the fact that the lions-share of their money comes from concerts. Well, so much for my thoughts on the subject. However, it does bother me that tomorrows future leaders appear to be so lax at taking a stand on issues that should be important to them. -------------- Message: (From Eiger) "We are taking advantage of that technology to make universities aware of the problem on their campuses," RIAA President Cary Sherman said. "They need to be sending a message to their students about how to live a lawful life." taken from: http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/02/21/downloading.music.ap/index.html I read this and it infuriates me. For one thing I do not agree with their stance on copyright laws, and after reading your mission I don't think it can be said any better. For another thing, it is insane that they can say something about universities needing to show students how to live a lawful life when so many of the musicians under the mega labels are living anything but lawful lives. What hypocrasy. After reading the latest and greatest from RIAA I couldn't take it anymore so I tried to contact them, but found no links on their site, but I was able to find your site....Thanks for what you are doing. I am tired of corporations controlling government. It has gone too far. I'm going to read more on the site now...Thanks again! Keep up the good fight! ------------ Message: (From Mattew) As a college student, I was more than offended when I found out how the RIAA was targeting big-name schools. One of my potential schools was on that list, Purdue U. To prevent other students from the fines, suspension, and warnings they may receive I went to collegeCONFIDENTIAL.com, and posted a topic on how to prevent being hunted from the RIAA. (Simple things such as using proxy servers, purchasing and using private routers ect.). It seems CC didn't much like that, as they deleted my thread and banned me from the site. After reading the ToS, I did not see a single section where I broke the ToS. I feel my 1st Amendment rights have been thrown out the window. I have contacted the Admins of the site, but to no avail. I would like to spread the information to college students, but cannot find a way to do so. So, can briia.com help? Thanks ------------------ Message: Hello, I'm an up-and-coming recording engineer, and I was just wondering if there are any books out there I could read about the RIAA from a expose, here's-how-bad-it-really-is kind of angle. You know, kind of like how Fast Food Nation was to the fast food industry. All I really saw in Barnes&Noble today was the straight, reference-booky Music Business stuff. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -Mark ------------------- Message: The RIAA has recently shut down my independent music blog over the preview of an unreleased track. That's right, one single track that was aiding in the hyping of a new release. The site was: http://whoneedsradio.com The track was "Charmer" by Kings of Leon. I had a legal disclaimer stating that any copyright owner in complaint with material posted was to directly contact me for immediate removal of the material, but instead the RIAA went straight to my host and got me shut down. Of course they don't care about the hundreds of independent artists being promoted on our site a month, nor do they care to admit that the labels directly send me these advances to review purely for this "hyping" purpose. So now I'm jumping through hoops, and may possibly be put in court over this. And get this, the site has been down for 3 days, even after I've agreed to remove the file, and they are still not reinstating my site. FUCK THE RIAA. Fuck major labels. Fuck the people who kill music and all that it stands for. What else can we do to bring this system down? Sincerely, Lady Byrd Founder. Contributor. Victim of the RIAA. http://whoneedsradio.com ---------------- Message: I am 58 years old. My daughter introduced me to downloading 5 or 6 years ago. The site that I was using had a feature that allowed me to listen to similar music. I downloaded quite a few songs that year. I also purchased about 20 CDs that year. I haven't downloaded an audio file in 5 years... I have purchased only 2 or 3 CDs since then. We have a small radio market in Fargo, ND. Without the P2P sites there is no way to preview new music. --------------- Message: I'm in a band and we would like to take part in boycott-riaa. We're thrash/grind/punk band from Spartanburg, SC...we're called the rocket boys..thanks for your time..check us out if you have time. www.myspace.com/therocketboys -dani -------------- Message: Hello! I'd like to see more of an effort to associate the term "RIAA" with its members. That way, bad press for the RIAA won't just be bad press for the RIAA -- it will be bad press for Sony, BMG, Geffen, RCA etc.

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 6:00 PM Sheesh, where the f**k is everybody? Have our recent turmoils driven away all our active participants? lol Hey folks, I am GIVING you all "Odds and Ends" as the place to rant and rave, cuss and fuss. (TRUE, I do NOT want ugly Jerry Springer style flame-war name-calling and bickering...) But, that does NOT mean you can't let your hair down. :)

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 6:01 PM All work and no play... (You all know the axiom.)

gdZiemann	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 7:00 PM "I would like to spread the information to college students, but cannot find a way to do so." Neither can the administrators. Have you tried the bars? "wondering if there are any books out there I could read about the RIAA from a expose, here's-how-bad-it-really-is kind of angle" Hit Men by Fredric Dannen "The RIAA has recently shut down my independent music blog over the preview of an unreleased track. That's right, one single track that was aiding in the hyping of a new release." Repeat after me: The RIAA's music is illegal. The RIAA's music is illegal. The RIAA's music is illegal. Learn it. Know it. Live it.

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 7:22 PM Hit Men by Fredric Dannen Yup, that book was an early (and only slightly pre-Internet) source that provided ME with some of the insight/info about what the RIAA scoundrels were up to back then. (Hope you like reading about TRUE LIFE Mafia tie-ins!) It deals with crap that went down in music biz history up thru the '80's. Highly recommended.

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 9:46 PM It almost sounds as if Mike expects some controversy (or at least a little crap) on this thread now and then. Okay, off-topic, here it goes: What we need is a better deterrent for heinous, cruel crimes. Case in point: That vicious killer who buried that poor, innocent little girl alive to die horribly suffocating in dirt. (And there's been all kinds of truly horrendous crimes in recent decades.) Here's what we do: Simply add one phrase to the Constitution at the part where it talks about no cruel or unusual punishment -- "except in the most severe cases of horribly cruel crimes committed". That way, the parents of that poor girl could get closure from her inhuman-beast murderer gasping his last breaths in the throes of execution by being buried alive in dirt just as he did to his victim! Fitting, it would be. And serve as a warning to those who might contemplate doing something terrible to somebody. Thousands of years ago, there was a rule of justice: "An eye for an eye" -- it envisions the prospect of dishing out painful punishment for committing painful crimes. Societies that have strayed from this concept have more problems with prevention of brutality. It won't stop all of it, but it very likely would reduce the amount.

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 9:52 PM But, of course, fat chance of our nation agreeing to stronger justice. Hell, we've got too many bleeding hearts who don't even believe in capital punishment for murderers at all, not even for serial killers. Execution violates a murderer's rights, perhaps? (rolls eyes)

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:06 PM None of this coddling crap. Make the S.O.B.s really pay for their gruesome crimes in the manner deserved!

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:09 PM No plea bargaining for a lesser charge, either. And set a limit on the number of appeals. GET TOUGH ON KILLERS, damn it!

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:09 PM Hang 'em all from a high tree! I agree! (So long as it ain't me.)

pepe512000	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:15 PM I think there is one place in the world where the authorities shoot the bad guy and present the bill for the bullet to the next of kin..think of all the jail space and tax this would save?

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:20 PM You're safe, Shmoo; you're a good guy! (symbolically giving Mike a white hat to wear)

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:22 PM Pepe - your points are well made. Those ARE extra benefits (about the jail space thing and saving tax dollars), aren't they.

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:44 PM pessimist, I am not sure if I want you to crown me with a white hat. Damn STRAIGHT, and YOU BEttchya I'd like to have that "white hat" you speak of... But, TRUE life might intervene. I know you to be a very active participant here at Boycott-Riaa. I am so happy and glad. But, I do NOT know much about you other than that. I try very hard to take as "neutral" philisophical/religious/political position I humanly can. ======== Just for the record. I am an agnostic/aethist who can not be converted (unless GOD/ALLAH/BUDDA shows up himself in person for REAL in front of me.) (And, even then I'd probably say "Bullsh*t") "unsaved" does NOT mean the same thing as "evil" SURE, I am probably "wrong" in my convictions. (MOST of the major religions tell tales about how "even the unwashed" can be a tool for enlightenment.) Maybe I am one of those. lol

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:45 PM Ok, enough religio-philosophical crap from me. I'm going to BED.

independentm...	Date: March 11, 2007 @ 2:08 PM Nobody been using the "Odds and Ends" this past week. Hmm... ========= Oh well, here's something from the INBOX: Message: "I think i'm going to start a new business! Considering the legal precident the CRB's new Royalty Rates and Rules decision will make, this might be the perfect time to start up a money making venture and Join the RIAA in its takeover of the US. Using their tactics, I will hire people to patrol the streets of this nation looking specifically for cars with 2 or more people playing Music. Then write down their license plate number. We will provide this information to the RIAA for a fee so they can sue the driver for 1) Not having a Promoters License to hold a public performance of copywrited works and... 2) Broadcasting this material without permission of the Copyright holder .... 3) so they can collect royalties from the Driver for each passenger who hears the music off the CD or Radio in the vehicle... Our First targets will be the Lawmakers, congressmen and women, state representatives and the members of the CRB and Library of Congress! Then we'll go after the public who has the Audacity to listen to music! Just think what fun it will be watching the RIAA sue an artist for playing another artists music to their buddies in their rides under these conditions. I know a few Gangstah Rappers who would love that! And finally we'll target the RIAA officers and workers for the same things...play music, pay the price. After that, we'll go after them in their houses when they throw their kids a birthday party to collect royalties for singing "Happy Birthday" or playing music at highschool proms...all those teenagers dancing to music without paying Royalties? Lets get them all! We'll make millions! Anyone want in? --MADcHATTER"

independentm...	Date: March 11, 2007 @ 2:09 PM Message: with the new ruleing i may have to close my internet based radio station i wanna show my support to this site! hockingradio.com

independentm...	Date: March 11, 2007 @ 2:11 PM Message: I thought about something the other day that the copyrights for the media industry extend for periods longer than the patents for life saving medicines. The recent round of law suits and RICO violations by the RIAA are getting to be outlandish. They errode the ideas of a free market society, place pressures on members of society that will be felt for a long time, and propogate the idea that piracy is a social justice against socially injust industry. We are coming to a time were people must stand up to the bullying nature of industries and fight back in all ways that they possibly can.

gdZiemann	Date: March 11, 2007 @ 10:20 PM Must be spring break.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 13, 2007 @ 7:30 PM Okay, here's a topic to debate: Our democratic republic was instituted with the concept of majority rule, but with consideration to be given to minority rights. Question #1: Does majority rule apply over areas of morality? Worthy response: Only in the absence of moral absolutes. Question #2: If majority rule over an issue of morality is applied, how is consideration to be given to the minority of dissenters? Lots of peripheral perspectives to ponder, don't you think? Deep water to navigate. (Relevance: abortion on demand; imposition of homosexual marriages; etc.) Anybody want to venture their ideas?

TrueAudio	Date: March 13, 2007 @ 8:46 PM Here's some people that have the balls to tell it like it is: "U.S. music industry demands students pay for downloading" http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31348 "Well, yeah, there are situations where students pirate software to help with their educations. A lot of graphics design software is ridiculously expensive. I actually just helped my girlfriend torrent $1200 worth of software for her next semester as a graphics design major. She simply did not have the money to buy it, and would have had to take out another loan JUST for software if we hadn't downloaded them." ---------------------------------------------- A nice response to this previously posted topic titled "Lawmakers Bash Colleges Over Campus Piracy" "today i was working with 6th graders. they were doing powerpoints on authors. the highlight of my day was when the librarian showed them how to use printscreen/paste to copy any website pics, even ones that are "rightclick protected". they teach kids in 6th grade how to circumvent protection schemes. by the time they are in high school, they are pros. good luck selling the intellectual property b.s. when this generation turns 35. i'd like to think that the next generation will be the ones to explode on the tech scene, hopefully, the internet won't be turned into a stupid one way box by then to replace the tv" --------------------------------------------- "DRM to stop you Watching your TV" http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31462 http://www.eff.org/IP/DVB/dvb_briefing_paper.php "this says 1 thing to me which the industry isn't getting because they are not human they cannot be else they would have the same thoughts. would you stick your hand into a pool of sharks to pick up a coin risking having your hand biten off, and still not getting the coin. or would you rather stick your hand into a tank of goldfish thus picking up the coin with no fears or worry of getting your hand bitten of at anytime + obtaining the coin and being happy. In other words why risk having all your devices fucked because they've decided they dont want you taping or watching a show when you can get the same thing better quality no commercials, no bullshit can do what you want with it when you want without risking destroying your hard earned equipement. yes pirated is the only way to go from now on. because pirated is the only way you can safely watch your tv shows play games or watch movies. because all the legal alternatives could end up costing you mega bucks when the content destroys it Tell me how this is ment to prevent piracy???? this gives people who never pirated a thing in their lives to actually start doing so in fear of legal contents destroying their hardware isn't it ment to be un-official pirated underhanded sly black market contents that is ment to be the security risk? not the offical stuff lol boy do they know how to promote piracy they are excelent at doing the job us pirates have been trying to do but failed for years." "GraphiX why the surprise?HDMI/HDCP,plugging analogue holes,broadcast flags,the DMCA,"trusted computing" etc etc..its all been coming for a while. I'll be very surprised if the consumers weren't even allowed to record shows for their own personal viewing.Copyright protection is not only about the main studios.Hardware manufacturers are linked in this chain as well.Everyone is trying to safeguard their own interests and sooner or later they will begin to clash.When consumers stop buying the recorders because they're not allowed to record their favourite programs the big Studios may not suffer but the hardware makers will.They're not stupid,they'll leave backdoors into their systems to make them hackable. Now as long as these interests remain seperate we as consumers are ok.However vertical integration is our biggest enemy.Take Murdoch for example.He owns the studios which makes the content,he controls the distribution channels for that content and manufacturers the hardware to display that content.This is every studio's wet dream.Sony manufactures hardware and makes movies.You'll see alot of studios owning part stakes in hardware manufacturers.These are all anti-competitive practices which will need to be addressed by consumer organisations of tomorrow."

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:48 AM independentm... (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 12:29 AM Merle, Willie and Ray get together Merle Haggard sometimes misses the old way of making records, when fixing an off-key note wasn't so simple and all the little mistakes were captured on vinyl. independentm... (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 12:41 AM Andrea's dad ( http://www.herbywallace.com/ ) used to play pedal steel guitar for Ray Price. independentm... (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 12:54 AM Kid's label "Sony Wonder" is going under. Sony closing the doors to "concentrate on core music business" grumpygeezer (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:19 AM I recall one of Ray's first successful songs back in the 50's called "Crazy Arms", which was also covered by Jerry "the killer" Lee Lewis (one of his first hits too). Wow, that was a long time ago . . . but then, after all, Ray IS 81. grumpygeezer (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:30 AM Jerry Lee and Elvis, both on the Sun label, doing rock-a-billy stuff ... so was Buddy Holly at the time, circa 1953-54, before he got primed by Petty the opportunistic producer. Can't recall when Tom Parker got his hooks into Elvis, but it was still with Sun prior to RCA. Ah, those were the days ... prior to Bill Haley. Rhythm and blues were raw and magnetic. Rhythm and blues! That's what I miss most of all; I mean, not having any new R&B to look forward to . . . thanks to hip-hop and rap which supplanted it. pepe512000 (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:34 AM Al Gore tries to get a hand from Congress for a rock concert promoting environmental issues Al Gore just wants to get out there and make another 46 million bucks.... grumpygeezer (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:34 AM Re-reading my previous message, I did not intend to leave any impression that Buddy recorded for the Sun label; I know better. I bought Buddy on Decca '78 rpm records before he went on Coral and Brunswick. I lived through those years; scarcely need any book or Google to recall a lot of stuff. grumpygeezer (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:37 AM Well, promoting the environment is certainly better that polluting it, which is what mostly goes on in the developed world these days ... corporate greed being what it is, of course. I say, more power to Al. grumpygeezer (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:38 AM typo: better THAN polluting it independentm... (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:42 AM Herby didn't play on the original version of "Crazy Arms" (He's only in his late '50's/early '60's, lol.) But, I believe he did tour and record with Ray a lot in the late '70's and thru the '80's. I'll try to remember to ask him next time he has me and Andrea over for dinner. (Herby is a Country Music "Hall of Fame" artist who has worked with a lot of "names" including: Jenny C. Riley, Con Hunley, and many others.) -------- Oh well, I'm breaking the rules and "chit-chatting" too much... Back to work: Startup to offer the 'personal radio' independentm... (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:45 AM Let's move our "chit chat" over to the "Odds and Ends" currently at: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/21359

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:05 AM pessimist (Delete) Date: March 13, 2007 @ 11:28 PM COMMENTS ABOUT THE AT&T CLAIMING THE CASE AGAINST THEIR HELPING THE GOVERNMENT DO ILLEGAL SPYING IS JUST "TOO SECRET FOR ANY COURT": Monday, 12 March 2007 - 7:34 PM Name: Biil Owens This secret stuff has gotten way out of control. I believe the reason they spy on Americans is to find out just how much the citizens know about their illegal activities! I don't trust our government at all anymore. If we could get some good investigations into what they have been up to and those investigations indicated they were innocent, then I might regain some of my trust. ----- Monday, 12 March 2007 - 8:24 PM Name: Agent Johnson Bill; You should trust the government without question... After all, we keep you safe from terrorism ... Asking too many questions can only lead to trouble. And we know who you are, so be good... A. Johnson ------- Monday, 12 March 2007 - 9:01 PM Name: Derrick Vote Libertarian!

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:10 AM Sorry all the stuff I imported over from "The Digital Music Scene" above is so messy. (I only have a limited amount of time online, so I copy and pasted several things in bulk/en masse.) But you all are fine fart smellers (...er, I mean "smart fellers") lol, gotta watch my dyslexia I know you can figure it all out. :)

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:16 AM "Question #1: Does majority rule apply over areas of morality? Worthy response: Only in the absence of moral absolutes." Sorry to respond all "socratic" but... What the hell is a "moral absolute?" We better ALL agree on it (including provisions for the rights of those in "the minority") before we call something "absolute" :P

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:25 AM "Tell me how this is ment to prevent piracy???? this gives people who never pirated a thing in their lives to actually start doing so in fear of legal contents destroying their hardware... (and etc.)" True. However, never forget the REASON DRM and other garbage exists has never been to keep "illegal" folks from doing copyright infringement DRM exists to herd the law abiding sheep and to preserve the monopolies. DRM only hurts the consumer. (And the industry when it backfires.) True bootleggers, hackers & crackers, copyright infringers and so called "pirates" only laugh at the RIAA and etcAA because their actions create a black market to be exploited. Kinda like the war on drugs.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:33 AM re: agreeing on moral absolutes The framers of the Declaration of Independence were evidently aware of some moral absolutes: "We hold these truths . . . that all people are created equal in God-given rights . . . that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In other words, the right to life and liberty are truths. And that these rights came from God's hand. AND that PEOPLE came from God's hand. Pretty significant stuff.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:36 AM axiomatic concept: Problems come when people turn their backs on truth.

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:02 AM I certainly agree with the self-evident truths in our Declaration... But not everyone out there does. (And, I myself might have some doubt in the existance of this "God" fellow you speak of.) ------ lol, That's why I like the phrase "self-evident" our Founding Father's used when talking about truths. It doesn't make those points invalid even when you are like me and can't easily swallow the idea of an invisible omnipotent being up in the sky.

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:08 AM NOTE TO ALL BOYCOTT RIAA READERS AND VISITORS... MY OWN religious beliefs and/or non-beliefs have NO BEARING on anything that matters here at the site. (In fact, I'd probably be smarter not to even ever bring it up. lol.)

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:10 AM MOST of the people in the world are "religious" to one extent or another. That puts me in a minority. (Protect my rights PLEASE!) :)

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:12 AM But their "self-evident" included people being "created" (by God), not evolving from primordal ooze. And the framers were in agreement with this. Our society has strayed far from this. And just what does our culture have to show for our wonderful "enlightenment" and our "freedom" from the constraints of the concept of divine power-- our independence (as it were) from God?

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:16 AM I guess some folks want "self-evident" apart from any divine element. They may BE in the minority, but, indeed, as you wrote, all rights deserve protecting. In essence, that's a good rationale for being a libertarian ... to champion individual freedoms.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:22 AM freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion

gdZiemann	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:38 AM Question #1: Does majority rule apply over areas of morality? Worthy response: Only in the absence of moral absolutes. A) There are no moral absolutes. B) The majority seldom make the rules, but usually follow them. Question #2: If majority rule over an issue of morality is applied, how is consideration to be given to the minority of dissenters? Applied to what? Even noting your examples (abortion and gay marriage) and adding in scenarios such as downloading or waging a war, how can the majority apply a rule to an issue of morality, other than making a law against doing the "bad" thing? No consideration is ever given to the dissenters, even if there are a half a million of them in the streets of Washington, D.C. Morality comes from within. You can't force people to act the way you want them to if they don't believe the same thing you do.

gdZiemann	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:41 AM Until Galileo came along, it was self-evident that the Earth was the center of the universe.

TrueAudio	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 4:21 AM "True bootleggers, hackers & crackers, copyright infringers and so called "pirates" only laugh at the RIAA and etcAA because their actions create a black market to be exploited. Kinda like the war on drugs." -------------------------------------------- "True drug traffickers and drug smugglers (CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY), so-called "Traitors to America" (/sarcasm on) only laugh at the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), feds, local, state police, and the entire US Judicial system with its monumentally overflowing prisons, because their actions create a black market to be exploited". Kinda like the war on 2urruri5m

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 6:57 AM gdZiemann wrote: "There are no moral absolutes." Are you "absolute"ly sure? Logically, saying that is in itself an absolute! Sorry, you lose that one, George. Technically: People can have faith in God and believe in the metaphysical, without imperical proof. Those with the faith can't prove they're right, but neither can the ones without the faith prove them wrong. You can't disprove a negative, so your position about there being no absolutes is untenable. By the way, imperical science often finds itself in its own trap: It says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. But matter exists, duh! Evolution cannot account for the origin of matter. Science textbooks are prone to proffer a so-called "big bang" theory, but where did the original material come from to have the potential for a "bang" in the first place? You also wrote: "How can the majority apply a rule to an issue of morality, other than making a law against doing a 'bad' thing?" My response: They can apply a rule to an issue of morality by making a law against a "good" thing, that's how! (Another point of logic for you.) And that would be a case of the majority ruling in an inappropriate manner. Would you like an example of one of those kinds of things that occurred in the 20th century? And you wrote: "Morality comes from within. You can't force people to act the way you want them to if they don't believe the same thing you do." My response: Many societal laws are based on threat of punishment, for the common good. For example, there is a severe form of punishment for unjustifiably taking a person's life. This indeed is a form of coercion, to the extent that even though one may not accept the belief of the value of a human life, society's safety is served by hanging a threat of strong penalty over the head of a potential miscreant inclined to take the right to life lightly. . . and thus, he/she is fairly well deterred from acting in a murderous manner. A murderer (and murderers are relatively rare mostly because of the law) who is apprehended (and most are caught) is reasonably deterrred from being a repeat offender. Plus, others similarly inclined definitely feel the pressure to conform to the rule of law, even if they have a dim view of the value of human life. Thus, they are mostly compelled to act the way society wants them to. You wrote, "You can't force people . . ." That premise may be unsupportable. Concerning your phrase, "if they don't believe the same thing you do": The founding fathers did not all share specific religious tenets of faith (there was considerable diversity), yet they all concurred in a form of government that had its bases (plural of basis) on rights endowed by the Creator. And they knew that there would need to be a strong deterrent put in place (criminal laws) to enforce these God-given rights when it came to the protection of the life of its citizens. The theory of government relies on the consent of the governed. There is implied consent. Earlier I had asked something to the effect of what have we as a society gained by the increasing loss of respect for divine influence. Our culture has multiplied technological progress, but, in general, peace of mind and happiness have not gone along for the ride of the multiplication process. There is a reason.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 7:24 AM "Until Galileo came along, it was self-evident that the Earth was the center of the universe." Frequently, belief systems based on intellect have their day and are then vanquished. How many decades did medical science consider bloodletting to be a viable form of therapy before it was discredited? Until a magician comes along, it is (tongue in cheek, here) self-evident that "matter cannot be created". And, oh yeah, "life comes only from life" (that was in the science textbooks up until about twenty years ago). Granted, the fathers' use of "self-evident" was not a commendable phrase. They weren't perfect; and you are observant enough to point out their human-ness in that regard. Criticism warranted. But that does not detract from the impact of their (by extension, I mean those later devising the Constitution) arrangement for rule of law to better serve the needs of society. Self-evident or not, we generally believe in protecting life (at least, once it has managed to emerge safely from the womb)! Conforming to the rule of law is essential. But, I know, I haven't devoted time to how our laws AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT need to be fair and just and preserve basic individual liberties. That's room for another day's attention.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 8:03 AM God may very well exist (it can�t be proven or disproven), and, if so, we may be responsible to Him. It�s a matter of a belief system on the part of an individual. However, it also takes faith to believe that matter came about without it having been created (current scientific thought). In our closed system (which is what science says our universe is, though they could be wrong!) how can something come from nothing? Ah, you gotta have �faith� (or better yet, not ask that question; it�s embarressing, like asking where the original matter came from that made the big bang)! Those who have spiritual faith, in a sense become part of something bigger and better than themselves or any human. Life can have meaning and purpose. There is inner peace of mind. Take that away by espousing existentialism (which has been a growing trend of orientation), and what do you have in the place of God? Life loses significance. We homo sapiens are here by circumstances of chance, and there is no future of life after death. Note I said �Life loses significance.� That�s one important reason why the founding fathers acknowledged that the right to life is the number one priority. Once life becomes devalued in any way, it starts on a wayward path from precious toward trivial. ON BALANCE, what does our culture have to show for our "enlightenment" and our "freedom" from the constraints of the concept of divine power, our independence (as it were) from God? I'm serious. What have we as a society gained by the increasing loss of respect for the divine? Our culture has multiplied technological progress, but, generally, peace of mind and happiness have not accompanied that multiplication AT ALL! There is a reason.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 8:27 AM You wrote: "Until Galileo came along, it was self-evident that the Earth was the center of the universe." No, not self-evident until Galileo came along. You see, it was Copernicus, NOT Galileo! Just goes to show that ANYbody can make a mistake with that self-evident phrase. Comic relief: Even if we disagree, we can all share a bit of camaraderie in our proneness to err as humans.

TrueAudio	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 11:15 AM "God may very well exist (it can�t be proven or disproven), and, if so, we may be responsible to Him. It�s a matter of a belief system on the part of an individual." Romans 1:19-21 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." I Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" Matthew 12:22-45 "Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." Psalms 14:1 "To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

gdZiemann	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:12 PM gdZiemann wrote: "There are no moral absolutes." Codger wrote: "Logically, saying that is in itself an absolute!" It's a logical absolute. Not a moral one. "Thou shalt not kill." That's about as morally absolute as you can get. The same rule seems to be included in (almost?) every religion. Seems pretty simple and straightforward, until someone breaks the rule which, in most societies, results in the pursuit and capture of the perpetrator. Then we generally kill them. ---------- Copernicus, Galileo, it doesn't change the fact that things which seem self-evident are very often not the way things actually work. "Frequently, belief systems based on intellect have their day and are then vanquished." Vanquished? If you've ever smashed a finger in the nail region (for instance), you know that bloodletting still has a use. Intellectual beliefs are subject to modification based upon the emergence of new information. It is also subject to modification upon the emergence of bogus information if it's really convincing.

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:27 PM OMG... What evil have I wrothed.

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:29 PM OK, ok. I believe in each and all of your God's and religious credo's... (Go to bed you dummies!)

pepe512000	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 5:45 PM Shmoo, we're all just here to make your life a living hell! :)

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 5:54 PM gdZiemann wrote: "There are no moral absolutes." Codger wrote: "Logically, saying that is in itself an absolute!" gdZiemann: "It's a logical absolute. Not a moral one." My response: What is your antecedent to your use of "it's"? Regardless, how can you literally wave away the existence of a category of absolutes, moral or otherwise? Saying there is not a moral absolute does equate with evidence; but, by the same token, I've already said I can't prove the existence of a moral absolute. The point is you're willing to say there are no moral absolutes; that's something you cannot prove. How can you prove a negative? To maintain that there isn't a certain type of absolute is an absolute in and of itself; doesn't matter if it's a moral issue or not. gdZiemann wrote: "Thou shalt not kill. That's about as morally absolute as you can get." My response: No argument from me on that one! I fail to grasp the purpose of what you wrote. BTW, if God can't be disproven to exist, then I'm free to believe His Word (the Bible) from which your quotation is taken. You're free to be a pagan, which I've noticed you once wrote to admit being. No problem, since that's a matter of personal liberty. I have difficulty following part of what you write because I risk reading more into your words than may be proper... and I'm generally an analytical type person. For example, when you say "Then, we generally kill them" -- am I to assume you are opposed to strong measures to control (punish; deter) murder? I'm trying not to make unjustifiable conclusions from what you write, but you don't make things easy. Again, you're free to consider alternate views from something that most of our culture has accepted, just as I am free to disaprove of something most of our culture has accepted in the instance of, for example, abortion since 1973. gdZiemann: "Things which seem self-evident are very often not the way things actually work." Again, you've got my head nodding up and down! Previously, I alluded to the way this phrase actually has little meaning when used in a way that appeals to common sense alone. Incidentally, I believe in divine revelation (the Words of the Bible were revealed by God), as many religious people do. I'm not saying that's "self-evident" at all. But neither can scientists (or even you) explain away the "self-evidence" of matter existing without a Creator. (Especially when they say matter can't be created. So, we've got matter around us, alright; how the H did it get here? According to science, it shouldn't even exist.) Speaking of an enigma or a paradox, I used to smile when I was a kid and someone would ask, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" It still has no simple answer. But to this day, I can still chuckle at an old (not that old) science textbook that insisted that "life comes from life." That was a biological concept taught. In another science text, there was this theory about how the first lifeform might have evolved from some primordial ooze! You wrote that things may not always be what they seem, and things change. Yes, I concur! And, I stand by this: "Frequently, belief systems based on intellect have their day and are then vanquished." Bloodletting, which I had written about previously, was done up until several hundred years ago to supposedly aid in treating patients. (Though based on the intellect of the day, it was counter-productive, of course.) But had the doctors believed the Old Testament, it had said at least two millenia earlier that the blood contains the life of a person. Your reference to "bogus information" is what I would apply to that practice of bloodletting. Your mention of blood coming from a smashed finger is a different topic; not applicable to the point I had been making about the failed medical practice of intentional bloodletting in past centuries. Belief systems of the past have not always stood the test of time, and, yes, many of them HAVE been vanquished. I'm almost certain you want to be convincing. So, I don't want to deter you from trying.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 6:02 PM To err is human, and I was human when I wrote: "How can you literally wave away the existence of a category of absolutes, moral or otherwise?" My mistake was in not typing the word "potential" which should have been written in front of the word "existence."

TrueAudio	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 6:55 PM "Piracy killing PC gaming market?" http://psp.joystiq.com/2006/08/07/id-piracy-killing-pc-gaming-market/1 "12. Whats killing the PC market is the fact that half the people out there are not gonna consistently upgrade their rigs every year to play the newest game out there. Did piracy kill the Xbox? Did it kill the Playstation? I dont think so."

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 7:04 PM MY SUMMARY (and then I'll shut up for awhile) My belief system: A creator-God could have instituted spiritual laws (unseen, unprovable), some of which are moral. As I have said, I cannot prove this. But, neither can anyone disprove it. It takes faith to believe in a divine being, but it also takes faith to ponder various hows and whys in the absence of intelligent design. I stand by my previous positions; example: "People can have faith in God and believe in the metaphysical, without empirical proof. Those with the faith can't prove they're right, but neither can the ones without the faith prove them wrong." The founding fathers had faith, and they spoke about liberties granted by a Creator. Society is well served by rules and a government, but only if both are just and fair. Does life have ultimate meaning apart from being responsible to God? Do temporary toys, possessions, power, and pleasure lead to lasting happiness? What about our relationships to others' needs? And what about the possibility of the hereafter? These are some vital questions to consider. Science, medical expertise, and technology are subject to change (even about-faces). Science has been known to contradict itself, as I've already indicated... and it still has no answer for the origin of matter. You wrote that morality comes from within. Well, ideally, that is the best way to have it. But, for the best interests of the group (society), we still need to deal with those who have no good sense of right or wrong. A prime example would be the bad guy in the 1960's movie "The Man Who Shot Libery Valance". We need protection (and yes, strong medicine for potential offenders) for our very lives and our property. Citizens need to feel safe in their homes (and elsewhere). Okay, your turn on any of these issues if you want to try to convince me otherwise.

gdZiemann	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 8:51 PM "My response: What is your antecedent to your use of "it's"?" The statement "There are no moral absolutes" is a logical absolute, not a moral one. "How can you prove a negative?" Lack of evidence to the contrary. There may very well be monsters in the closet, but no matter how many times I check, I haven't found one yet. "You're free to be a pagan, which I've noticed you once wrote to admit being." Really? I don't recall that. I haven't even got to the issue of religion yet in this discussion. It wasn't part of the original questions. "For example, when you say "Then, we generally kill them" -- am I to assume you are opposed to strong measures to control (punish; deter) murder?" My point was that "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't have an "except for people that killed someone else" clause. If you execute a murderer, you're still breaking the rule. If God does exist, and the rule came from God, it should be absolute.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 1:03 AM gdZiemann: "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't have an "except for people that killed someone else" clause. If you execute a murderer, you're still breaking the rule. My response: The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" is from Exodus 20. Other passages from Scripture elaborate and impart a more enhanced understanding of it: Gen. 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood shall have his blood shed; for God made man in His image." "Whoever intentionally strikes a mortal blow to a man must be put to death. He, however, who did not hunt a man down, but caused his death by an accident, may flee to a place of safety set apart for this purpose. But when a man kills another after maliciously scheming to do so, you must take him and put him to death." (Exodus 21:12-14) gdZiemann: "The statement "There are no moral absolutes" is a logical absolute, not a moral one." CriticalCodger: "In logic, how can you prove a negative?" gdZiemann: "Lack of evidence to the contrary. There may very well be monsters in the closet, but no matter how many times I check, I haven't found one yet." My response: It isn't always possible to check all circumstances to demonstrate a rigorous proof of a negative. A classic example is trying to prove that there aren't any two-headed calves alive on earth at a given moment. Back to your statement about "Lack of evidence to the contrary", you say (corresponding to your knowledge and experience). We'll need to dig deeper than that. Beyond a reasonable possibility is likely the minimum standard to apply in crucial cases like this. For us humans who don't have any evidence, much less proof, for how the material for the universe originated (science claiming matter can't be created), one should defer to a very high standard insofar as hypothesis testing would go in attempting to prove a negative. Extending the idea, it could be said that either a higher (divine) power exists, or it does not. God can't be proven to exist, nor can He be proven to not exist. We'll have to leave it at that (namely, that faith is required for or against, but faith nonetheless). ["Faith": belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence] However: If God exists and He creates, He could very well have initiated spiritual absolutes, including moral absolutes, for mankind's responsibility. He might have even left a manual or a kind of roadmap for us to follow in life. If so, we would not expect it to contain errors. An error-less book telling us how to live and get forgiveness to be saved? That shouldn't be any kind of "monster." The real monster with religion has been those groups who disgraced the faith with improper methods of dealing with people. The Crusades and The Inquisition didn't follow Christ's example or admonition. Even Martin Luther advocated unjust violence against Jews. How tragic and tainted their deeds or words have been! In a real sense, Christians are as Christians act. BUT, it does not follow that CHRISTIANITY is as Christians are or do. Hypocrites or deceivers or even murderers bearing a spiritual image of Christianity have been an occasional reality but do not invalidate Christ's teaching. (Example: Philosophy as a concept is not intrinsically defined by a sampling of philosophers who may or may not be following established philosophical precepts at any given point in time. Thus, we must consider the source of the protocols. It's the same with religion.) [Thanks for helping us keep the discussion civil.]

pepe512000	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 2:25 PM People philosophize till the cows come home...wonderful, but if you're seriously talking about "absolute morality" you might as well leave God right out of the picture. God did not give man the authority, nor the ability for absolute morality. Why? The following people had a direct line to God..wouldn't we love that nowadays?...there would be everyone's proof of God. However.... Right from the get go, Adam and Eve...they stole something, in direct defiance of God. Cain and Abel? The first murder.....from a murderous heart. And a biggie, the Israelites in the wilderness...following a Pillar of Fire at night and they got to watch the Red Sea being parted from the Hand of God Himself! Moses goes off to talk with God and get further instruction, and what are the people doing? they're building a golden calf idol to worship in place of God. What was that all about???? You see, people keep asking for proof of God, but when it's right in front of us...we just miss it! Again I say, God did not give man the authority, nor the ability for absolute morality. Did God make a mistake? No, and here's why....If we had the authority, the control, why would we have needed Christ and the Cross? What purpose or need would any God supply for us? He would have created us and made Himself redundant. Ok, end of sermon..fire away!

gdZiemann	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 2:55 PM if you're seriously talking about "absolute morality" you might as well leave God right out of the picture. Question #1: Does majority rule apply over areas of morality? Worthy response: Only in the absence of moral absolutes. Although I am unable to define a moral absolute, moral rules tend to be defined by a distinct minority and enforced against the majority. Question #2: If majority rule over an issue of morality is applied, how is consideration to be given to the minority of dissenters? Usually by the monuments marking where they died.

TrueAudio	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 4:26 PM Web censorship spreading globally http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/internet_web_censorship_spreading_globally.htm "Hate Crimes" Legislation Again Rears Its Ugly Head in Congress http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/hate_laws_hate_crimes_legislation_rears_ugly_head_in_congress.htm

TrueAudio	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 5:23 PM http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=19990 "Downloadable DVDs Incompatible With Current DVD Recorders" "The recently proposed "DVD Download" format that features the CSS copyright-protection software will not be compatible with all DVD recorders or PC burners, according to the DVD Forum. Announced by the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) last August, the new "DVD Download" format features the CSS (Content Scramble System) copyright-protection software that will allow stores to burn any one of thousands of movies on to special DVD discs while customers wait. The DVD Forum approved the CSS-MR rev1.0 specifications in January 2007. According to the specifications, DVD discs that comply with the specifications should not be recorded using burners that do not comply with the CSS-MR rev1.0 specifications as well. In addition, the new discs will be readable only by DVD-Video players only and not by non CSS-MR rev1.0 hardware that have a recording function." "So the new CSS DVD media will be recorded only be devices that have the "DVD Download" logo, and will be recognised for play-back only by DVD-Video players or DVD burners/recorders/PC drives marked with the specific logo. Sonic Solutions introduced a licensing and certification programme last month for its Qflix technology, which provides the tools for media companies and retailers to take advantage of the new standard." ""DVD Download" logo" -What a freaking joke, same old 20+ year old cat and mouse game. people can ALREADY download DVD's DUH. Oopps, but thats not "legal" according to them. This is just like the Interview that some female rep at EFF was on national television talking to Cary Sherman, where she said to him something along the lines of "Your taking away our digital rights and then trying to sell them back to us piecemeal". The MPAA/RIAA are coming off like ;DONLOADABLE DVD" is a "feature", pretending that it doesn;t already exists, because to them, if it doesn't fit their definition of whats legal, it's not even an option. Yeah, "it's not even an option alright, try telling that to the people who monitor the bandwidth on the major backbones in the US, where 70% of the Internet traffic is Bittorrent". The majority of people don't buy shit, people don't buy hobbled hardware. hardware that gets bad reviews for being user UNfriendly DOESN'T SELL. You want to start to see some change in this country? Then everyone in the U.S. needs to start boycotting a hell of alot more than the RIAA. Boycott DIRECTV, DISH NETWORK, so-called ON DEMAND digital cable. I've got all the DEMAND right here, at the click of a mouse, should I choose to use it. Like I said before, I wish they would shut down all public libraries in the United States, because they facilitate "IP" infringement. I wish they would do this because it would take something THIS severe to actually wake people up that are so stupid, they think their mouse is a telephone and try to talk into it, or use it as a foot-pedal when they're seeking technical support.

TrueAudio	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 6:33 PM US Senators Pressure Canada on Camcording Laws http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31268 1st we DRM'd 5 1/4 floppies then we DRM'd 3 /12" floppies 3rd we DRM'd CD's 4th we DRM'd TV broadcasts 5th we DRM'd DVD's 6th we DRM'd garage door openers and printer cartridges 7th we DRM'd memory sticks 8th we DRM'd Rental cars so we can shut off the engine remotely if you try to leave the U.S. 9th we DRM'd CPU's, Motherboards (BIOS) 10th we are going to DRM your Driver's License and Passports within 2 years or less 11th we are going to DRM your entire country 12th we are going to DRM the Entire internet 13th we will finally have DRM'd the world It's everyones fault because 6 billion+ of you in this world didn't think know what was going on, didn't care, still don't care, and don't/didn't believe boycotting was powerful enough (it is if enough people do it). Since the majority of the world did not care, enjoy your life of DRM, it really was about respecting copyright, just ask the Boy Scouts of America. It's ok, the Government loves you because TV says it does.

pepe512000	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 7:29 PM ~~moral rules tend to be defined by a distinct minority and enforced against the majority~~ Are you simply referring to our governments control over us as the minority rule? Or, if you are referring to the civilization of mankind as a whole, I think you will have a long road to walk to find the correct answers, but you might start with the "Story of Civilization" series written by Will and Ariel Durant. If we, as a society today, had never known our Christian God? If our blueprint, the Bible, had never come into the picture? Who would have known what a moral was, other than how we treat our fellow man, as to what kind of respect is due him. What about the native Africans? Or the Australian aboriginals, pre-missionaries?. As a society, we know they had laws to live by but usually pretty straight forward..you steal my goat, I come and kill you. Isn't there a tribal law out there yet, that if one steals, they have that hand cut off? There would always have to have been a few guidelines to follow to co-exist with fellow tribesman. So Without God... Question #1 Would the majority rule over areas of morality, or "whatever would be considered moral." Answer # 1. Sure! If the majority all carry big sticks and have many guns. "Question #2: If majority rule over an issue of morality is applied, how is consideration to be given to the minority of dissenters? Usually by the monuments marking where they died." Answer # 2 - No doubt!

CriticalCodger	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 7:33 PM "If we had the authority, the control, why would we have needed Christ and the Cross?" Because man is prone to err, and discretion would not necessarily accompany the use of spectacularly mighty power even if man had access to it. "What purpose or need would any God supply for us?" We would still be in need of salvation from the condemnation that follows transgressing GOD'S absolute laws (and His standard of perfection that only Christ could fulfill in our behalf).

Dreddsnik	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 8:37 PM " So Without God... Question #1 Would the majority rule over areas of morality, or "whatever would be considered moral." Answer # 1. Sure! If the majority all carry big sticks and have many guns. "Question #2: If majority rule over an issue of morality is applied, how is consideration to be given to the minority of dissenters? Usually by the monuments marking where they died." Answer # 2 - No doubt! " The answers are all the same 'With God' as well. Doing it, 'with God' just makes it seem justified.

TrueAudio	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 9:01 PM Two people in history that I can think of have probably facilitated more confusion, crime, despair, hatred, bloodshed, oppression, and just utter ruination of the United States, and of the world. I will mention them in a minute. They, in my opinion, are great contributors of the reason this country hates God, and/or denies His existence, 2nd only to the Devil himself. While salvation from God can only come from denial of self and an earnest acknowledgement from the heart that one is lost, and needs to trust His Son, who shed his Blood for us, and call upon Him. You can clearly see the consequences of a nation who has all but rescinded the notion of God (U.S. currency still holds His name). This first man alone is probably one of the main reasons billions of people have argued for over a millenium about "what the truth really is". He is responsible for ALL false versions of the bible which came about over 1500 years later, responsible for the creation, and the EXISTENCE of many cults, etc. Origen (Greek: Ὠριγένης Ōrig�nēs, 185�ca. 254) http://bibleprobe.com/falsebibles.htm "All of the other newer Bible versions, such as the NIV, NASB, etc. are based upon another manuscript family known as the Alexandrian Manuscript family which was put together by Origen of Alexandria, Egypt in about the 2nd century. Most scholars agree Origen was a heretic because of his denial of essential doctrines. In all, there are over 5,000 major changes between the Majority Text (KJV & Douay Reims) and the Minority Text (al