A cult?

[BuzzKill]

Synthesis         
      The First Book of Carl Pagan
1. In the beginning there somehow existed a single spot.
2. And this spot was with out form, and of undetermined size; and darkness was upon the spot. And an unexplained ? Big Bang,? moved upon this spot.
3. And the Big Bang caused a great light: And so there was light.
4. And the resulting caos divided the light from the darkness.
5.And man eventually called the light day; and the darkness, he eventually called night. And the years and the centuries where the First ion.
6. And somehow, the stars, planets and galaxies evolved.
7. And all matter and energy resulted somehow from this unexplained Big Bang: and so it happened.
8. And man eventually called the result, the cosmos. And the years and the centuries where the Second ion.
9. And water somehow evolved, and dry land evolved after ions of evolution: and so it happened.
10. And man eventually called the dry land earth; and the collecting together of the waters, called he seas: And it was a good chance arrangement.
11. And thru some yet discovered chemical reactions, Life sprang up; and Life began as a one celled organism.
12.  And eventually, the organism evolved into the grass, and all plants, trees, fruits and vegetables upon the earth. And so it happened.
13. And the years and the centuries where the Third ion.
14. And the stars divided day from night; And eventually, man used them to chart his horoscope; and he eventually called this Astrology.
15-18. And the stars gave light to the earth, as it so happened to evolve.
19. And the years and the centuries where the Forth ion.
20-22. Then from the plant life evolved sea creatures of all kinds; which evolved into lizards; which eventually evolved into birds of all kinds.
23. And the years and the centuries where the Fifth ion.
24-25. And then, all other land creatures evolved; which all evolved from the original one celled organism; And without leaving any traces of transitional forms in the fossil record.
26-30. And then monkeys evolved; Further than all other creatures; Developing reason and language, with superior intelligence, becoming Man.
31. And the years and the centuries where the Sixth ion.
         2
1. Thus it happened; In complete contradiction to ?The Second Law of Thermodynamics,? the cosmos evolved.

From the new uncredible version
Michael D. Varnell

The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The universal law of decay; states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder.
The natural tendency of complex, ordered, arrangements is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.
Due to the second law of thermodynamics, everything eventually falls apart and disintegrates.
The chemical processes which sustain the life of our bodies becomes less efficient as we grow older. Left to themselves, all chemical compounds tend to break apart into simpler materials, rather than become more complex.
An overall and universal principle of change in nature which is downhill, not uphill, as evolution requires.

? Origins?
Paul S. Taylor
Films for Christ

[GregFL]

here we go again

On 2005-05-13 08:22:00, BuzzKill wrote:

"When exactly Rome began crucifixion, I don't know. But back when David was writing the psalms, there was no Rome, and no notion of crucifixion.

I have been over that in detail. Cruxifiction predates Rome and was practiced in earlier relgions and earlier Jesus like deities were supposedly cruxified.
Did you read anything I posted?

In my opinion, your comparing the disciples to Joseph Smith or Mohamed is considerably flawed. The disciples were relating first hand accounts that were very likely to get them arrested, tortured and murdered.  

And I demonstrated by timeline why the bible was not written by the disciples. I also presented earlier competing Jesus/myths that had 12 desciples to you.
 You have not responded. Have you not read anything I have posted?

The comparison with the radical Islamist seems especially absurd to me. They seek out their own deaths so as to cause death for many more. The disciples did no such thing - they sought to bring life; and were willing to face painful death to do it.

and many a christian soldier has marched off to his death, killed in the name of god, and advocated other's death and destruction. So what?

The kamikazes? Well, judging from the accounts given by Japanese survivors of WWII, they mostly didn't want to do that-

Your conclusion fails to take the histrocity of what acually occured. These young men were isolated and convinced their sacrifice would assure their place in eternity. How else would they convince a 20 year to go on a one way trip to death? Only religion has that power.

Do some research.

 When the various books were written, and by whom, is a topic of constant debate. Personally, I feel the authors can be believed

 
Not really. They have pretty much nailed down when they were written, and in some cases are pretty sure by whom.

Who has this information? The Catholic church. They were Christianity, Buzzkill, in the first century. What is their take?

"The New Testament was not written all at once. The books that compose it appeared one after another in the space of fifty years, i.e. in the second half of the first century."

Jesus Died in 32 ad, if we are to believe the myth. Assuming the apostles existed and were roughly his age, this would put them all WAY OVER THE LIFESPAN AGE OF MAN IN THE FIRST CENTURY WHEN THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN.

I have said this before. Did you read my words or just dismiss them?

How much clearer and close to the source do we need to go? Your sources did not even exist at this time, the catholic church OWNS the history of the bible.

As to the Unicorn - there is a great deal of debate on what the animal actually was; tho it is understandable why the King James translators used the word Unicorn in their translations. It seems some argument can be made that some such creature did exist;
 

The debate only exists among those trying to justify the absurdities in the bible.

The only argument that can be made that The Unicorn  existed is that it is listed in mythology . So was Pegasus, the winged horse. Do you believe in him too? If not, why not? Is it because it is the mythology of a competing god/myth?


You follow with..people "wrote it existed". People write that bigfoot exists all the time. Is that proof? Lepracauns were written about as well. Proof?

Think, Buzzkill, think. There is no reason to believe the myth of the unicorn, unless you just want to! When science demonstrates their existence, as science has demonstrated  the dinasour, then you can accept these myths at face value. Until then it is wild speculation.

As for the historical record - More and more evidence is being found that the people and places of the Bible did exist and that the Biblical history is accurate.

This is a fallicious argument at its core.

Because a book lists historical places does not preclude it as a book of myth and inaccuracies.For example, Because the movie "texas chain saw masscre" lists Texas,for example,  and it is demonstrative that there is a Texas, Are we to therefore assume this movie is a  historical an accurate portrayal in its entirety? This is absurd.

In addition, there are many easily demonstrated contradicted accounts of history in the bible, starting with the first chapter, genesis. There are blantant glaring historical differences from the gate.

check this out.


 The two contradictory creation accounts. First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)  Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)  
Gen.1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image. Gen.2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.  
Gen.1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  Gen.2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.  


Historically accurate? The bible can't even get the story of Jesus's supposed rise to heaven at Easter straight, there are varying accounts as to what happened.

Please.....

[GregFL]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

The universal law of decay; states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder.

typical dishonest approach by creation science. What the "second law" really states is a CLOSED system moves from order to disorder. The earth is anything but a closed system. This analogy FAILS MISERABLY.

Why is the earth not a closed system? anyone with a shred of scientific knowledge knows the answer to that.

Buzzkill, don't denegrate your argument by cutting and pasting things you don't understand.

[GregFL]

In addition, critically review your post above. Was the author non-biased? (no)Did he start his essay with Ad hominem attacks?(yes) Did he attribute words to someone that are obviously fallicious?(yes) Did he misstate or misrepresent  a scientific term in order to discredit a scientific idea? (yes) Is the information  analyzed in a manner that is consistent with critical thinking or is he dismissing it outright? (dimissing it). Has he shown any evidence for a competing theory or is he just throwing stones at science? (self evident by the text).

Is your source credible based on the above observations?

[BuzzKill]

// You have not responded. Have you not read anything I have posted? //


I read it Greg. I also respond. Maybe not with answers that satisfy you - but I have responded. The crucifixion question, for instance: You  gave the number of years before the time of Christ at what - 330 something? I'd have to go back and look. David was writing the psalms 1000 years before the time of Christ - and well before anyone was crucified.


// many a christian soldier has marched off to his death, killed in the name of god, and advocated other's death and destruction. So what? //

They might compare to the Islamist; but not the disciples.

// Your conclusion fails to take the histrocity of what acually occured. These young men were isolated and convinced their sacrifice would assure their place in eternity. How else would they convince a 20 year to go on a one way trip to death? Only religion has that power. //

Not in oriental culture. Fear of disgrace is extremely powerful - and according to the men I saw interviewed - this was the force behind the Kamikazes.

// Who has this information? The Catholic church. They were Christianity, Buzzkill, in the first century. What is their take? //

The Catholic church begins its history with the conversion of Charlemagne. I know Catholics disagree - I know all about the Catholic notion Peter was the first Pope - and I would dispute that.  Charlemagne didn't come along until long after the church was well established with the gospels and letters written and in circulation.

// "The New Testament was not written all at once. //

Of corse it wasn't. I only question anyone being able to say with certainty exactly when any one book was written.

// esus Died in 32 ad. Assuming the apostles were roughly his age, this would put them all WAY OVER THE LIFESPAN AGE OF MAN IN THE FIRST CENTURY WHEN THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN.
I have said this before. Did you read my words or just dismiss them? //

Pretty much dismissed them - but I did try and explain why.

// The only argument that can be made that some sort animal exists is that it is listed in mythology. //

The Unicorn quotes are not from Mythology. However - I am Not stating a dogmatic belief in Unicorns! I will say, maybe; and why not - but I don't know. However, my point was, that what ever the animal actually was, for the King James translators, the animal that best seemed to fit the word they were attempting to translate, was Unicorn.

Which brings to mind another complaint of yours - all the "good" stuff being edited out. Not so. New translations are needed because language is a shifty thing. Words don't always retain the same meaning and can become misunderstood as a result. The words of a translation may change - but only b/c the meaning of the word has changed with modern use. To retain a correct translation one needs to update from time to time.

The Carl Pagan post - I simply thought it a good enough response to the question of weather one could be dogmatic about random chance and eons. I didn't imagine anyone would take it seriously.

Second law of Thermodynamics and a closed system - I don't know about that. I really don't. But I have never see it defined that way. Seems to be a pretty much accepted law of nature - unless you are touting evolution.

With regard to Genesis; my personally belief is the God created man and beast. My take on the description Moses gives us, is that Man came after the animals, and that Eve Came after Adam. I don't take the second example you give as contradicting the first. I think it was a simple case of Moses reiterating that God had made the beasts - " And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field"; not,  "Then out of the ground. . ."  

But Greg, just like I told Niles - there are plenty of questions I have no answer for.  There is still much that puzzles me. Still, there is enough that I feel I do understand, to trust the rest is also trustworthy - and I expect to understand it someday.


Greg, about this:
 i started crying and actually babled out some nonsense in "toungues" and had a genuine physical sense of something entering my body.

What do you think that was? I'm seriously asking and really do wonder what you think about it.

PS - (I always forget something)
Your life span thing - I'd have to dispute that - at least for tha time in that region. Jesus was 33 when he began His ministry - and He wasn't considered an old man. Anna and Simon, at the Temple, are examples of the very aged, still being around - tho it was admitted each was an exception.
Yes, I guess I'm proving the Bible with the Bible!
Do you think they were lying about their ages?
:wink:
*
[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-05-13 10:48 ]

[GregFL]

Pretty much dismissed them - but I did try and explain why.

Then we are done.

And not  really did you attempt to explain why, you you just twisted and turned, much like your above post. That post probably took you all of what, 5 minutes? Meanwhile my responses have been thoroughly researched, sincere, thoughtfull and direct to your questions and comments.

Example: I provided you with a Written Text that was traced to 330 years before the new testament. You then turn that into "cruxifiction at 330 years before the new testament", and use that date to confirm your flawed thesis that Old testament paul Conjured up the idea of Cruxifiction before it ever existed!!!!  This is an intellectually bankrupt discussion if ever there was one.

You are not prepared for this discussion, nor or you willing to put in the time to educate yourself enough to make rational counter-points. Meanwhile I have sincerely spent many hours responding to your requests. Your counter response is to demand more explanation from me, but never to contribute. Is your approach just to sit back, make trite responses, then not back them up?

Unless you have something new or sincere to add, I am afraid I am not going to contribute any more to this discussion.

[GregFL]

On 2005-05-13 10:41:00, BuzzKill wrote:



Greg, about this:


 i started crying and actually babled out some nonsense in "toungues" and had a genuine physical sense of something entering my body.





What do you think that was? I'm seriously asking and really do wonder what you think about it."

And here we go with more demands for well thought out answers, followed by Trite one minute responses.

No thank you. Many here reading already know enough about group behavioral dynamics to understand these processes people put themselves thru.

[BuzzKill]

If you think I can put together *any kind* of response to you in 5 minutes - you really have no idea of how slow I am.

I have tried to give you responses to your points of contention. I have in fact, given some of these things a great deal of thought, and spent a good amount of time looking for articles and verses and so on.

//Example: I provided you with a Written Text that was traced to 330 years before the new testament.//

OK -
 
//You then turn that into "crucifixion at 330 years before the new testament", //

Isn't that what your saying? That this is proof that men were crucified 330 years before the NT age?

//and use that date to confirm your flawed thesis that Old testament paul Conjured up the idea of Cruxifiction before it ever existed!!!!//

No - I point out that David wrote a description of crucifixion 1000 years before the NT age - and that this was well before crucifixion was practiced - even given your dates that place it several hundred years before Jesus.

 //This is an intellectually bankrupt discussion if ever there was one.//

I'm sorry you feel this way.
I never claimed to be any kind of intellectual tho.

//Meanwhile I have sincerely spent many hours responding to your requests. //

I don't think I've made more than a request or two; which could be answered pretty simply. If you have spent time on this, it wasn't as any kind of Favor to me - now was it? You've spent just as much time and effort as you felt like spending. No more and no less.

I am puzzled at your seeming anger toward me for not meeting your expectations. If you don't think my arguments are convincing or well thought out - Fine - I'm not up to your standards - but why be so angry about it?

I'm often distracted and preoccupied and sick, and so not up to my owne standards - but I try anyway.

//Unless you have something new or sincere to add, I am afraid I am not going to contribute any more to this discussion.//

I could not be more sincere than I've been. I can't think of anything new that would be likely to move you - tho if you want to make a detailed study of prophecy, there is A Lot that hasn't been covered here. But I think you need a better teacher than you have in me.

// And here we go with more demands for well thought out answers, followed by Trite one minute responses.
No thank you. Many here reading already know enough about group behavioral dynamics to understand these processes people put themselves thru. //

Be fair Greg, I didn't demand anything. I asked a question. I do wonder. If you want to tell me to bugger off, thats your right. But you seem to have answered - it was the power of suggestion; group dynamics. OK. Thats all I wanted to know - what you thought it was.

I need to make a correction. The old folks who were waiting to meet the Messiah at the Temple: the old guy was named Simeon; not Simon. Its in Luke; Chapter 2 vs 25 and on.

[GregFL]

Thanks, but I am tiring. I think Buzzkill is sincere but this conversation is just too one-sided and the admission that she was just dismissing what I typed killed the enthusiasm.

She has already professed her unwaivering belief not only in the god of the bible, but ALL gods. She also believes in demons, ghosts,spirits, unicorns, fortune telling , supernatural power of Ouija boards, Poltergeists, and on and on.

All that would be fine if this was a  spirited debate. Since it has been confirmed that what I have responded with has been dismissed offhand, I am suspicious that much of it hasn't even been read.

So, what we have is more like an interview with the interviewer not really all that interested in the opinions of the interviewee.

Sorry folks, but "ASK THE ATHEIST" is no longer playing in this thread. I hope it has been entertaining and enlightening for some, and not too boring for others.

[GregFL]

Here, one final freebee for Buzzkill.

I just found this...

Read a Science new article on the second law of thermodynamics. Think about how "creation scientist" use the term to discredit evolution.

What is this law really about?

Does modern science support entirely the theory, or is their some new discoveries that tend to indicate not all systems behave according to the law?

Is it about heat loss ie: entropy, or is it really about the inability of an organism to evolve?

If this law has been misrepresented, why would they do this?

Is there an agenda?

Does the christian faith have a history of doing  this?

IF so, to what extremes have they gone to in the past to squelch the scientific understanding of the physical universe?

Is this intellectually dishonest?

Why isn't the earth a closed system?

Taking what we now Know about this law and its application, Are there other examples of systems not going from order to chaos?

How about an human embryo? doesn't it go from simple to extremely complex? Doesn't it maintain heat?what system is it in? Is this an open system or a closed system?

 How about the earth...Is it losing all its heat or receiving heat from other sources? What type of system is this?

Finally, does the "creation science" argument offer an alternative, or is it just throwing rocks?

These question will either bring you to the conclusion that "creation science" is lying or is intentionally misleading people. Ask yourself why.


from the scientists mouth....

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2572

[GregFL]

I just read your response Buzzkill. I am NOT angry, I am tired of answering questions over and over.

You claim to indicate that you can trace timelines in the bible. This is a highly disputed claim with people who study the bible. Even bible verses contradict themselves hugely, and further,  the time lines are based on the age of people who are, in the bible, professed to live up to almost a thousand years.

In other words, your statement that Paul wrote psalm 22 1000 years before the new testament is based on a supernatural premise that man lived for 13 times his current lifespan, and 28 times the lifespan of the average 1st century man.


Your  timeline is not scientific but the inverse, based on a supernatural premise that science has been unable to demonstrate one iota of evidence for, and that is the silly notion that man lived for many centuries in the old testament.

The entire problem with christian apologetics and "Creation science" is that there is no attempt at intellectual honesty but instead, and going back to one of my original points that has been summarily ignored, it STARTS WITH A CONCLUSION AND FRANTICALLY SEARCHES FOR SUPPORT, NEVER ALLOWING ANY ROOM FOR CORRECTIONS OF THE BASIC PREMISE.

In other words, Buzzkill, you are spewing dogma and ignoring reasoned discussion.  That is the problem.

There is no anger my lady, only an impasse..

[Timoclea]

(This doesn't refer to Buzz, because I don't know that he *can't* understand the 2nd law of thermo, only that he apparently *doesn't*.)

I asked myself why.

Mostly, on the issue of what the Second Law of Thermodynamics does or doesn't say, and what the scientific terms in it do and don't mean, my answer to "why" is pretty much that they're just either stupid or ignorant.

It's not politically correct to call anyone stupid.

It's like all of us admit that there are stupid people in the world, but it's considered really rude to in any way point out who they are.

A *few* of the people who misquote the 2nd Law of Thermo are merely ignorant.

Most of them still don't understand the 2nd Law of Thermo and why it doesn't say or mean what they think it does after a very careful, precise, detailed explanation in very small words.

Someone who's never had the 2nd Law of Thermo explained reasonably well and misquotes it is merely ignorant.

Someone who wouldn't, or didn't, understand it even with a competent explanation is stupid.

It really is that simple.

They're not dishonest, they're just stupid.

Stupidity is not a character flaw.  I've known and do know and like some very nice people who, through no fault of their own, are stupid.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being stupid.  It's certainly better not to be, but it's not like anybody chooses it on purpose.

But a lot of the things wrong with public policy or society that go counter to what should be good sense happen because there's a critical point that most people are too stupid to understand.  It's a fundamental flaw in democracy, but all the alternative systems are even worse.

There's no point in arguing with someone who misquotes the 2nd Law of Thermo.  You can ask them to listen to an explanation and explain it briefly.  But if they continue to argue with you about it, trying to convince them is just a waste of time.

Some people are not capable of understanding why certain arguments they make are just factually, and/or logically wrong.

If they not only don't "get it" but can't "get it," debate is pointless.

They're not bad people, but debating them is pointless.

Timoclea

Never let your sense of
    morals get in the way of
    doing what's right
--Isaac Asimov

[Timoclea]

2nd Law of Thermo, explained in very small words.  It's still an approximation, but unlike the approximation used by the creationists, this one is actually close enough to not distort the fundamental meaning of the 2nd law:

In any closed system, entropy increases.

"Entropy" does not really mean "disorder."  Entropy means heat.  A lot of people say entropy means disorder, but there are a lot of kinds of disorder, and heat is a specific kind of disorder.  Heat is the kind of disorder the 2nd Law is talking about.  But it's talking about it in a very complicated way.

"Closed System" means an area in space that no energy is entering or leaving, and that no matter is entering or leaving.

"Closed System" is talking about that whole area as a whole.  Entropy can decrease in one part of that closed system.  The 2nd Law just says that if Entropy does decrease in one part of the closed system, it increases a just a little bit more than the decrease somewhere else in that system.

What the 2nd Law really says is that every time you do anything, or anything does anything, some of the matter or energy escapes as waste heat.  Even if you're using heat as the energy to do something some of the heat is wasted.

The 2nd Law can't say anything about what happens to life on Earth because the Earth always has more energy coming in from the Sun.  The extra energy coming into Earth causes weather and chemical changes in ways that mean evolution can happen without breaking the 2nd Law.

The 2nd Law doesn't say evolution *does* happen.

It also doesn't say evolution can't happen.

Creationists who try to use the 2nd law either leave out the part about the Closed System, or don't understand what Closed System means, or they think they understand what Entropy is but really don't.

It would be like me saying the 1st of the Ten Commandments says: Thou shalt have no other.

And then saying that that means I can only own one book.

Or a smarter me saying the 1st of the 10 C's says: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

And then saying that that means I can only own one book, because I think the word "gods" means paper thingies with writing on the inside.

Get it?

Timoclea

Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.
--Ambrose Bierce

[Antigen]

It never ceases to amaze me how many times any of us can have the same religious discussion over and over and it still seems to have legs.

Buzz, I don't see a big difference between the radicals of Islam or Japan and those of Roman times. In all cases, religion had a role in unifying them against their respective oppressors. In all cases, the 'gospel' for which they sacrificed their lives was one of rebellion or resistance against a ruler or invader.

I think you're making a huge intellectual mistake when you assume that the only, or even the main reason early Christians rebelled was over some moot philisophical point of belief. It wasn't. The Roman Empire was a secular government. Cesar really didn't give a flyin' run at a rollin' doughnut what the peasants believed, how they prayed or what not, so long as they continued to peacefully work for the empire, pay their taxes and not make trouble.

The Christ(s) of Roman times incited rebellion against the Roman Empire. They didn't martyr themselvs over dogma, they (and people all over the empire who subscribed to many different legends and cultures) martyred themselves for a much better reason; freedom. The Roman officials only required the rebels who acquired some political or social power to renounce the belief that they owned themselves and didn't owe their lives and productivity to the empire. That was the whole conflict. Those who wouldn't tell their followers to forget about it and get back to work in the fields or the mines or on the road crews were publicly and severely punished. It didn't work out too well till the Catholics took over the Roman Empire. That really seemed to confuse a lot of people for some time to come.

And that's what's happening now. I don't care whether someone speaks in terms of a Great Spirit like a lot of No American native cultures or about gods and holy ghosts or fairies like the Finish ppl do or about Robin Hood and his merry band or about LOTR or Star Wars. It doesn't matter at all, so long as they're talking some sense and not confusing a good morality play w/ factual, historical record.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
   10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;

[GregFL]

On 2005-05-13 13:41:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:

"Greg, I appreciate the efforts you put into this.   ......



(Buzz, that is in no way meant as a dig towards you.  It's just honestly how I see most people of your conviction.  I'm glad it works for you and you're happy with it but I just can't wrap my brain around it.)

A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.
http://smack.accesscard.org/index/misc/atheist/' target='_new'>Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist

"

Thanks For that!

I think you accurately See Buzzkill's efforts too. I believe she is sincere, just incapable of engaging this conversation outside the boundaries of her dogma. That is okay, she isn't the only one.