On 5/8/2011 9:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 23:28:15 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2011 19:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> or not (like buy cigarettes or alcohol), having your identity verified
>>
>> No, that's my point. You only have to prove how old you are, not who you
>> are.
>
> But one's age is one property of one's self.  If your identity can't be
> verified, then how does one know the information on this 'ID' is yours
> and not somebody elses?

That's why I said "in practice"...

> I don't think it's a matter of recording it or not.

If they don't record your name or address, then the ID isn't needed to do 
what you're doing. Just proof of age. They're using the card not to identify 
you, but to determine your age. They haven't identified you if 5 seconds 
after they look at your ID they don't remember your name, any more than 
they've already identified you by looking at your face.

 > To issue a state ID,
> you have to prove who you are - without that proof, the ID is meaningless
> and the state won't issue it.

Oh, well, sure. But you don't have to prove who you are to buy alcohol. You 
only have to prove how old you are. You don't have to prove who you are to 
drive - you only have to prove you have a driver license. In practice, 
nobody is going to issue a photo ID with only your age on it and not your 
name and address, but the *law* doesn't say you have to provide ID. But if a 
state issued ID with just your picture and your birthday, you could buy beer 
with that. And other IDs can be used instead. (I can imagine, for example, a 
grocery near a college taking college ID with a photo as proof of age to buy 
beer.)

Contrast with, say, immigration control, where you actually *do* have to 
prove who you are.  Or (getting back to the original point) countries where 
the police can ask you at any time to prove your identity.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2011 0:48, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Of course, you need a passport to get back
>> into the country if you leave(*)
>
>    That would be unconstitutional here. You can't stop a citizen from
> entering the country.

Well, that's probably the case here. And given our national nuttiness about 
terrorists, it's possible you wind up in some sort of trouble for not having 
your passport.

My point wasn't that you don't get in without the passport as much as it was 
"the purpose of a passport is to get in." Each ID is issued for a particular 
purpose, and there are very few forms of ID issued as "this is ID that 
doesn't come with anything more than just ID."  States will issue this sort 
of thing if you ask for it, but it's a convenience for dealing with places 
(like bars) that might want to see ID that don't issue their own.

>    (Of course if you try to enter the country with some other form of ID
> than your passport, it will probably take longer than the usual 10 seconds
> it takes with a passport. I don't know what it would involve, but probably
> more scrutiny, perhaps even paperwork. If you don't have *any* form of ID,
> it will probably take a lot longer to prove your citizenship in some other
> way. However, constitutionally you are allowed to enter the country as a
> matter of course, if you are a citizen. The constitution does not mention
> passports as a requirement.)

I would guess it's similar here, even tho our constitution doesn't 
specifically provide for that.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> My point wasn't that you don't get in without the passport as much as it was 
> "the purpose of a passport is to get in."

  I though the main purpose of passports is to travel abroad. You shouldn't
need a passport to get *back* to your own country. (It might be the most
*convenient* way, but certainly not a necessity.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2011 9:54, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> My point wasn't that you don't get in without the passport as much as it was
>> "the purpose of a passport is to get in."
>
>    I though the main purpose of passports is to travel abroad. You shouldn't
> need a passport to get *back* to your own country. (It might be the most
> *convenient* way, but certainly not a necessity.)

The visa lets you go somewhere. The passport lets you come back. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 08 May 2011 09:25:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>> I don't think it's a matter of recording it or not.
> 
> If they don't record your name or address, then the ID isn't needed to
> do what you're doing. Just proof of age. They're using the card not to
> identify you, but to determine your age. They haven't identified you if
> 5 seconds after they look at your ID they don't remember your name, any
> more than they've already identified you by looking at your face.

Here in Utah, the drivers license or state ID is scanned and stored at 
stores that sell liquor if they decide to card you (which is a judgment 
call).

>  > To issue a state ID,
>> you have to prove who you are - without that proof, the ID is
>> meaningless and the state won't issue it.
> 
> Oh, well, sure. But you don't have to prove who you are to buy alcohol.
> You only have to prove how old you are. You don't have to prove who you
> are to drive - you only have to prove you have a driver license. 

But again, if you don't prove who you are (which is why it's a photo ID), 
then there's no way to correlate the data on the ID to the person using 
the ID.  So you do have to prove who you are in order for the ID to be 
useful.  I couldn't use my wife's ID to prove that I'm her age any more 
than she could use mine to prove that she's my age.

> In
> practice, nobody is going to issue a photo ID with only your age on it
> and not your name and address, but the *law* doesn't say you have to
> provide ID. But if a state issued ID with just your picture and your
> birthday, you could buy beer with that. And other IDs can be used
> instead. (I can imagine, for example, a grocery near a college taking
> college ID with a photo as proof of age to buy beer.)
> 
> Contrast with, say, immigration control, where you actually *do* have to
> prove who you are.  Or (getting back to the original point) countries
> where the police can ask you at any time to prove your identity.

Like Arizona. <scnr>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2011 11:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Here in Utah, the drivers license or state ID is scanned and stored at
> stores that sell liquor if they decide to card you (which is a judgment
> call).

OK.   I never saw that before.  But then, I haven't been young enough to 
card since long before the whole terrorist thing started.

> But again, if you don't prove who you are (which is why it's a photo ID),
> then there's no way to correlate the data on the ID to the person using
> the ID.

Sure. There could be a card with nothing but your photo and your age. It 
doesn't prove who you are any more than standing in front of the person does 
with your bare face hanging out.  I don't need to provide ID to prove I'm 
old enough to buy beer. Balding and starting to grey is sufficient.

The photo ID only proves who you are because it *also* includes demographics 
unrelated to your age. Your driver's license not only proves your name and 
address to the guy carding you, and provides your age, it also proves you're 
allowed to drive, and says whether you're an organ donor. None of those 
features are relevant to the transaction except the age.

> Like Arizona.<scnr>

I think the law there, while it may be being applied in a way at odds with 
what it actually says, is not unreasonable. It basically says if you don't 
have a driver's license, the cops get to check if you're an illegal 
immigrant. Since illegal immigrants can't legally get driver's licenses, 
driving without a license is a good sign that you're an illegal immigrant, 
at least there.  In theory, if the cops stop you and you *do* show ID, 
that's the end of the matter. But they don't get to stop illegals just to 
ask for ID any more than they would be allowed to stop me. (Which isn't to 
say they wouldn't sometimes be allowed to, but they'd actually need a reason 
in both cases.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:42:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 5/8/2011 11:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Here in Utah, the drivers license or state ID is scanned and stored at
>> stores that sell liquor if they decide to card you (which is a judgment
>> call).
> 
> OK.   I never saw that before.  But then, I haven't been young enough to
> card since long before the whole terrorist thing started.

Yeah, and here that is fairly new as well; they changed the drivers' 
licenses and state IDs about the time they removed the private club 
requirement for most places serving alcohol.

>> But again, if you don't prove who you are (which is why it's a photo
>> ID), then there's no way to correlate the data on the ID to the person
>> using the ID.
> 
> Sure. There could be a card with nothing but your photo and your age. It
> doesn't prove who you are any more than standing in front of the person
> does with your bare face hanging out.  I don't need to provide ID to
> prove I'm old enough to buy beer. Balding and starting to grey is
> sufficient.

Well, it has to be something issued by the state, too.  You can't create 
an ID as well - the ID has to be created and verified by a trusted 
authority.

> The photo ID only proves who you are because it *also* includes
> demographics unrelated to your age. Your driver's license not only
> proves your name and address to the guy carding you, and provides your
> age, it also proves you're allowed to drive, and says whether you're an
> organ donor. None of those features are relevant to the transaction
> except the age.
> 
>> Like Arizona.<scnr>
> 
> I think the law there, while it may be being applied in a way at odds
> with what it actually says, is not unreasonable. It basically says if
> you don't have a driver's license, the cops get to check if you're an
> illegal immigrant. Since illegal immigrants can't legally get driver's
> licenses, driving without a license is a good sign that you're an
> illegal immigrant, at least there.  In theory, if the cops stop you and
> you *do* show ID, that's the end of the matter. But they don't get to
> stop illegals just to ask for ID any more than they would be allowed to
> stop me. (Which isn't to say they wouldn't sometimes be allowed to, but
> they'd actually need a reason in both cases.)

I have to admit that the law has been tempered a bit since the initial 
proposal, but mostly I was making a joke. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2011 12:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, it has to be something issued by the state, too.  You can't create
> an ID as well - the ID has to be created and verified by a trusted
> authority.

You're still conflating accidental identification with the purpose of 
looking at the ID in the first place.

I don't need ID to prove I'm old enough to buy alcohol. Nobody cares who I 
am. I don't get carded at all, because simply showing my face is enough to 
prove I'm old enough.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/05/2011 8:31 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I don't need ID to prove I'm old enough to buy alcohol. Nobody cares who
> I am. I don't get carded at all, because simply showing my face is
> enough to prove I'm old enough.

Quote from the Daily Mail.

"Grandmother Tina MacNaughton-Jones, 47,  refused a bottle of wine in a 
Waitrose supermarket in Worthing, West Sussex - because she could not 
prove she was over 18. Her 22-year-old daughter then produced a driver's 
licence to buy the bottle but she, too, was turned down over fears that 
she would pass the alcohol on to her mother"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247925/Girl-told-ID-buy-QUICHE-Tesco-looked-21.html


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2011 12:45, Stephen wrote:
> Quote from the Daily Mail.

You're quoting a british tabloid that doesn't get respect even in Britian, 
about a topic where we're specifically talking about the USA?

Plus, it's a news story. It would be like quoting a news story about a 
motorcycle hitting a semi and killing the semi driver without hurting the 
cyclist to prove that cycles are safer than trucks. The reason it's in the 
paper is that it's such an absurd situation, so illogical and ridiculous to 
everyone who reads it that it's amusing.

>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247925/Girl-told-ID-buy-QUICHE-Tesco-looked-21.html

Plus that link doesn't go with your quote, but the linked article proves my 
point even more. She got carded for quiche, which is equally absurd. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/05/2011 9:08 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 5/8/2011 12:45, Stephen wrote:
>> Quote from the Daily Mail.
>
> You're quoting a british tabloid that doesn't get respect even in
> Britian, about a topic where we're specifically talking about the USA?
>
> Plus, it's a news story. It would be like quoting a news story about a
> motorcycle hitting a semi and killing the semi driver without hurting
> the cyclist to prove that cycles are safer than trucks. The reason it's
> in the paper is that it's such an absurd situation, so illogical and
> ridiculous to everyone who reads it that it's amusing.
>
>>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247925/Girl-told-ID-buy-QUICHE-Tesco-looked-21.html
>>
>
> Plus that link doesn't go with your quote, but the linked article proves
> my point even more. She got carded for quiche, which is equally absurd. :-)
>

Or I could be making a comment about your face not being enough to, what 
did you say”, not get you carded.



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/7/2011 4:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 5/7/2011 14:08, Warp wrote:
>> I lived many years without any unexpired official identification
>> document.
>
> In the USA it's kind of interesting. Most places that need ID need "a
> government-issued ID." Most people use a driver's license; but remember
> that we have at least 50 different kinds of drivers licenses, because
> driving rules are state rules, not federal rules.
Ironically, some states are doing things like the digital bar strip on 
the back, which makes carding someone easier in a store (Arizona is 
using a test system in Safeway for that now), and it is easier to law 
enforcement to run a card with that too. The ironic part being that the 
wackos and loonies have argued against an official federal ID for 
decades, but the transition to magnetic strips on the cards may just 
result in uniformity of the system, thereby producing one anyway. Mind, 
it will take about 4 seconds, once its universal, for some idiot pencil 
pusher to argue that its not valid as a country wide ID in some obscure 
case, anyway.

> People in the military
> often use their military ID. And there's passports, but surprisingly few
> people actually have a passport. (I heard that less than half the people
> in *Congress* have a passport.) Of course, you need a passport to get
> back into the country if you leave(*), so that means most people making
> our laws have never even vacationed in a different country.
>
Actually, now you can't even get out without a passport, as I understand it.

> "Social security" is basically a federal tax. It started out being
> *just* government guaranteed retirement benefits. Now, of course, the ID
> number is used for pretty much every financial identification, in spite
> of originally being guaranteed to only be used for social security.
>
And, of course, because of this, people can steal it from you, and get 
the benefits, assuming someone isn't paying attention in the fed, or you 
drop off the grid, while they keep using it.

> Other than that, there's very little need to have an "ID" as such. We
> don't even require IDs for voting. (Primarily because we had slaves for
> much longer than most modern civilized countries, and when the slaves
> got freed, none of them had IDs. We also don't have any sorts of tests
> (history, literacy, etc) for voting, for pretty much the same reasons.)
>
Again, this is changing on some states. The real reason is that a lot of 
poor, disinfranchised, and/or non-hard ass, non-drivers, newly arrived 
student, etc. vote Democrat, so once you have busted unions, to cut into 
the funding of Democratic campaigns, you then go after the voters (on 
the claim that vast, but completely unproven, fraud is happening), thus 
requiring that everyone show up with ID as proof of who they are (even 
if they are known by everyone in the damn town, and have lived there for 
50 years). Hell, in one case the even wanted to try to demand that a 
students "parents" be able to show X number of years of residency in the 
state you attend school in, so that you could vote, or you would have to 
wait Y number of years yourself, before you where eligible. Its the 
whole, "You need to take a test first.", all over again, only 
indirectly, so as not to run afoul of the prior law on the subject.

> You need a driver's license to drive. You need a passport to pass ports.
> Of course, you also need a credit card to charge something, a
> prescription to get controlled drugs, etc. But you don't really need ID
> on a normal basis.
>
Again, not always the case. Some states require you prove age, via ID, 
even if you look like you are 90. Its about as non-standard as 
everything else in the US, but you can't buy alcohol in those states, 
even if you where mummified, and had proof of being a 3,000 your old 
dead Egyptian, unless it was a form of verifiable ID, in those states.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/7/2011 7:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 17:23:31 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2011 16:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That's true in some states, but not in Utah.  In Utah they require an
>>> ID, and there's been a lot of discussion about whether or not that
>>> constitutes a poll tax or not.
>>
>> Oh, I forgot to add, you can almost always get a government ID for free,
>> or the government would have a hard time requiring you to have an ID to
>> get various services. E.g., most anywhere you get a driver's license,
>> you can go to get a non-driver ID using the same evidence you use to
>> prove your ID.
>
> Oh, sure - my stepson had a state-issued ID because he hadn't done
> drivers ed.  But I don't think it was free, there still was a cost
> involved.
>
Yeah, its only the SSN that is "free". Everything else they make you pay 
money for, especially if its a photo ID. That is one of the reasons 
people are complaining about it with polls. You are going to *require* 
someone that may have never had a photo ID in their life to *buy* one, 
just to do what they have a right to do anyway? No, if you are going to 
require it, then you damn well better provide one, for free, to those 
that can prove they have right to it, instead of forcing people, 
especially poor people, to pay $20 for the damn thing (which is what one 
costs in Arizona).

Post a reply to this message

On 5/7/2011 2:00 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 07/05/2011 7:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> I really don't want you in government,
>
>> I don't want them parking outside my house.
>
>    Be careful, or they'll play the victimization card: If someone makes
> even the slightest suggestion that their right to shout their views should
> perhaps be limited in some ways, they will immediately start shouting that
> they are being discriminated against and that there's a nationwide attack
> against christianity.
>
>    (Never mind that if someone dares to make any such public display about
> atheism, they will be outraged. They will be completely oblivious to the
> obvious double standard.)
>
>    Which got me thinking: Many christians in the United States like to
> emphasize how 80 or 90 or whatever percent of the nation consists of
> christians, while at the same time they behave like the vast majority
> consists of godless sinful heathens who need to be evangelized and saved.
> Double-think much?
>
No, about 1% of the country are loud, obnoxious, and constantly whining 
about how 80-90% are Christians, therefor we need to respect their far 
right, Biblical literalist, yet cherry picked, gibberish. If you are 
dumb enough, for one moment, to kiss their ass for this, and show 
respect for it, then you can watch them instantly shift gears and 
declare that 80-90% of people claiming to be Christians are in fact 
godless heathens, who don't follow the Bible properly, and will be left 
behind/burn in hell/have their rights taken away, for their own good/etc.

Not too different than what you said, but its a simple matter of 
personal convenience. If its convenient to accept that most people in 
the US are Christians, for the cause, you do so. When you are talking to 
people who already know this is a completely lie on your part, you can 
feel safe to declare the whole country, other than a few tiny lunatic 
cults, as evil, un-Christian, monsters, only slightly above pond scum, 
or possibly atheists.

There is a lot of double speak, but **absolutely** no double think going 
on there. Its simply political pandering, so that the sheep (i.e., 
moderate Christians) don't realize they are on the list of people to be 
shaved, when the "True Christians (tm)" take over, along with all the 
other heathens and unbelievers.

And, so few of them realize the truth, which is why they keep voting for 
the assholes who hold such views.

It all comes down to a very simple principle among these people, "Its 
acceptable to lie, cheat, steal, or even rape and murder, as long as the 
end result of the glorification of God, and the rise of his true 
religion, over all the false ones. After all, these things are all 
forgiven in the Bible itself, when the chosen people did them. What 
matters is that *our* side wins."

I always find it interesting that the same loonies that think this, and 
usually believe in the end of times, somehow gloss over the fact that 
nearly every single member of the human race is supposed to side with 
Satan in the end. So.. If they ever did manage to convert the whole 
country into a literalist, far right wing, theocracy, ridding the 
country of all the "invalid" Christian faiths, thus making the nuts the 
majority, who would they really be serving, by their own warped logic? 
Not that logic has any part in their gibberish, since its all about 
power, not their supposed god.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 08 May 2011 12:31:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 5/8/2011 12:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, it has to be something issued by the state, too.  You can't
>> create an ID as well - the ID has to be created and verified by a
>> trusted authority.
> 
> You're still conflating accidental identification with the purpose of
> looking at the ID in the first place.
> 
> I don't need ID to prove I'm old enough to buy alcohol. Nobody cares who
> I am. I don't get carded at all, because simply showing my face is
> enough to prove I'm old enough.

Well, no, it's about whether the data matches the identity.  In the cases 
of some individuals (you and me, for example), one look is sufficient to 
make a judgment call.  For others, like my wife, it's not.  If the ID she 
presented was a fake (ie, her identity wasn't assured), then you can bet 
that the fact that it says she's in her 40s would be insufficient.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 5/8/2011 9:54, Warp wrote:
> > Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
> >> My point wasn't that you don't get in without the passport as much as it was
> >> "the purpose of a passport is to get in."
> >
> >    I though the main purpose of passports is to travel abroad. You shouldn't
> > need a passport to get *back* to your own country. (It might be the most
> > *convenient* way, but certainly not a necessity.)

> The visa lets you go somewhere. The passport lets you come back. :-)

  Not all countries require a visa.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

BTW, I thought it was supposed to happen this last saturday but turns 
out it's still 5 days off... :p

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW, I thought it was supposed to happen this last saturday but turns 
> out it's still 5 days off... :p

  Still time to repent, I suppose. :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

It's happening today! What will you be doing in the last hours of...

... this mostly uneventful day?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:55:14 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>   It's happening today! What will you be doing in the last hours of...
>
> ... this mostly uneventful day?
>

I had to work overtime :(

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 21/05/2011 3:08 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:55:14 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> It's happening today! What will you be doing in the last hours of...
>>
>> ... this mostly uneventful day?
>>
>
> I had to work overtime :(
>

Me too. I put off doing something boring yesterday in the hope that I 
would not have to do it today.
I suppose it's not really overtime as I won't get paid for it. :-(

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 05/21/2011 11:32 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 21/05/2011 3:08 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:55:14 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>
>>> It's happening today! What will you be doing in the last hours of...
>>>
>>> ... this mostly uneventful day?
>>>
>>
>> I had to work overtime :(
>>
>
> Me too. I put off doing something boring yesterday in the hope that I
> would not have to do it today.
> I suppose it's not really overtime as I won't get paid for it. :-(
>

yeah ... suppose it was a good thing i didn't take all this too serious 
although i was half tempted to run up the credit card and buy that black 
and gold harley that i've been admiring ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 21/05/2011 6:49 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>
> yeah ... suppose it was a good thing i didn't take all this too serious
> although i was half tempted to run up the credit card and buy that black
> and gold harley that i've been admiring ;-)

LOL

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 21/05/2011 3:08 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:55:14 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >
> >> It's happening today! What will you be doing in the last hours of...
> >>
> >> ... this mostly uneventful day?
> >>
> >
> > I had to work overtime :(
> >

> Me too. I put off doing something boring yesterday in the hope that I 
> would not have to do it today.
> I suppose it's not really overtime as I won't get paid for it. :-(

  Cheer up, it's not the end of the world. :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21/05/2011 8:18 PM, Warp wrote:
>    Cheer up, it's not the end of the world. :P

Yes, worse things happen at sea. As I used to say when I worked 
offshore. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I look out of my window. No post-apocalyptic barren landscape. Just the
same old one. I suppose the end of the world didn't happen this time either.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> It's happening today! What will you be doing in the last hours of...
>
> ... this mostly uneventful day?

I hid beneath a rock all day long.  Good to see you're still around. :p

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I look out of my window. No post-apocalyptic barren landscape. Just the
> same old one. I suppose the end of the world didn't happen this time either.

BTW, is anyone able to access the website of the preachers?

http://www.familyradio.com/

wonder if the world ended for them.

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > I look out of my window. No post-apocalyptic barren landscape. Just the
> > same old one. I suppose the end of the world didn't happen this time either.
>
> BTW, is anyone able to access the website of the preachers?
>
> http://www.familyradio.com/
>
> wonder if the world ended for them.

nevermind, seems they are in trouble:

http://m.ibtimes.com/family-radio-financials-under-focus-scrutiny-epic-failure-doomsday-prediction-149760.html

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 May 2011 07:53:20 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> > I look out of my window. No post-apocalyptic barren landscape. Just  
>> the
>> > same old one. I suppose the end of the world didn't happen this time  
>> either.
>>
>> BTW, is anyone able to access the website of the preachers?
>>
>> http://www.familyradio.com/
>>
>> wonder if the world ended for them.
>
> nevermind, seems they are in trouble:
>
>
http://m.ibtimes.com/family-radio-financials-under-focus-scrutiny-epic-failure-doomsday-prediction-149760.html
>
>
It seems he's the only one that has been "raptured"... ;D

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW, is anyone able to access the website of the preachers?

> http://www.familyradio.com/

> wonder if the world ended for them.

  At least their tract is still online:
http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 21 May 2011 17:24:33 -0400, Warp wrote:

> I look out of my window. No post-apocalyptic barren landscape. Just the
> same old one. I suppose the end of the world didn't happen this time
> either.

Seemed to be a pretty nice day yesterday, all things considered.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5/21/2011 10:53 PM, nemesis wrote:
> "nemesis"<nam### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>>> I look out of my window. No post-apocalyptic barren landscape. Just the
>>> same old one. I suppose the end of the world didn't happen this time either.
>>
>> BTW, is anyone able to access the website of the preachers?
>>
>> http://www.familyradio.com/
>>
>> wonder if the world ended for them.
>
> nevermind, seems they are in trouble:
>
>
http://m.ibtimes.com/family-radio-financials-under-focus-scrutiny-epic-failure-doomsday-prediction-149760.html
>
Like I told someone on some site that "discusses" this sort of nonsense, 
unless they can prove he knew, or knew that the end would have brought 
failure to financial institutions, thus making all the money he 
collected worthless, or, I forget to mention this one actually, that he 
wasn't a priest, suing the bastard on fraud would be nearly impossible. 
Suing him for case by case situations resulting from deaths, i.e., 
"wrongful death", is more likely, but still problematic. Thank Zod we 
opted to protect the state from religion, and them from the state, to so 
great an extent that they are effectively immune to prosecution for 
nearly *everything*...

Post a reply to this message

update:  seems we're already under Judgement Day and it'll endure until October
21st, when the party finally ends!

http://unicornbooty.com/2011/05/whoops-the-rapture-is-actually-october-21st/

so hold tight! :p

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 May 2011 18:24:23 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> update:  seems we're already under Judgement Day and it'll endure until  
> October
> 21st, when the party finally ends!
>
> http://unicornbooty.com/2011/05/whoops-the-rapture-is-actually-october-21st/
>
> so hold tight! :p
>
He never learns. After Oct 21 it'll probably be sometime 2012...

:p',

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 18:24:23 +0200, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> > update:  seems we're already under Judgement Day and it'll endure until  
> > October
> > 21st, when the party finally ends!
> >
> > http://unicornbooty.com/2011/05/whoops-the-rapture-is-actually-october-21st/
> >
> > so hold tight! :p
> >
> He never learns. After Oct 21 it'll probably be sometime 2012...

  It reminds me of the House of Yahweh. They predicted that a nuclear war
will surely happen in 2006 (September, I think). When it didn't happen,
they said that the chain of events leading to the nuclear war started on
that date, and that in 9 months 80% of the world's population would be
wiped out by the nuclear war. When it didn't happen in 9 months, it was
once again extended to 11 months. After it didn't happen then either, they
still struggled about it for a few months more, but have then more or less
quietly dropped the whole issue. (Although you can still get the tracts and
books about it from them. I don't know what their explanation is for why
these materials are still calling it to happen in 2006, yet they are still
offering them today, in 2011.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 May 2011 12:24:23 -0400, nemesis wrote:

> update:  seems we're already under Judgement Day and it'll endure until
> October 21st, when the party finally ends!
> 
> http://unicornbooty.com/2011/05/whoops-the-rapture-is-actually-
october-21st/
> 
> so hold tight! :p

Yeah, because the problem is *entirely* that he can't do math. <shaking 
head>

(Yes, I know you're not agreeing with him, I just had to say this 
*somewhere*).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 May 2011 19:37:34 +0200, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>  
wrote:

> On Tue, 24 May 2011 12:24:23 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>
>> update:  seems we're already under Judgement Day and it'll endure until
>> October 21st, when the party finally ends!
>>
>> http://unicornbooty.com/2011/05/whoops-the-rapture-is-actually-
> october-21st/
>>
>> so hold tight! :p
>
> Yeah, because the problem is *entirely* that he can't do math. <shaking
> head>
>
> (Yes, I know you're not agreeing with him, I just had to say this
> *somewhere*).
>
> Jim

Definition of SENILE
1
: of, relating to, exhibiting, or characteristic of old age <senile  
weakness>; especially : exhibiting a loss of mental faculties associated  
with old age

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 May 2011 20:35:36 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:

> Definition of SENILE
> 1
> : of, relating to, exhibiting, or characteristic of old age <senile
> weakness>; especially : exhibiting a loss of mental faculties associated
> with old age

It's either that or 'crazy'.  I'm not entirely sure which.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 24/05/2011 7:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 20:35:36 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>
>> Definition of SENILE
>> 1
>> : of, relating to, exhibiting, or characteristic of old age<senile
>> weakness>; especially : exhibiting a loss of mental faculties associated
>> with old age
>
> It's either that or 'crazy'.  I'm not entirely sure which.
>

Or F'n con man

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 05/24/2011 08:54 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/05/2011 7:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2011 20:35:36 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>
>>> Definition of SENILE
>>> 1
>>> : of, relating to, exhibiting, or characteristic of old age<senile
>>> weakness>; especially : exhibiting a loss of mental faculties associated
>>> with old age
>>
>> It's either that or 'crazy'. I'm not entirely sure which.
>>
>
> Or F'n con man
>

have you seen his picture ... looks bloody bonkers to me!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 May 2011 00:54:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 24/05/2011 7:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2011 20:35:36 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>
>>> Definition of SENILE
>>> 1
>>> : of, relating to, exhibiting, or characteristic of old age<senile
>>> weakness>; especially : exhibiting a loss of mental faculties
>>> associated with old age
>>
>> It's either that or 'crazy'.  I'm not entirely sure which.
>>
>>
> Or F'n con man

That seems most likely, considering the number of people who gave him 
money for his ad campaign.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25/05/2011 1:12 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>
>
> have you seen his picture ... looks bloody bonkers to me!

Yes and yes.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/05/2011 5:54 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Or F'n con man
> That seems most likely, considering the number of people who gave him
> money for his ad campaign.

It just beggars belief that so many people fall for him and his like. 
But then Spam must pay someone.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/05/24 12:24, nemesis a écrit :
> update:  seems we're already under Judgement Day and it'll endure until October
> 21st, when the party finally ends!
>
> http://unicornbooty.com/2011/05/whoops-the-rapture-is-actually-october-21st/
>
> so hold tight! :p
>

Yeah!

Here's what manipulation you need to perform to get the actual date:
Convert the given date to the year number according to the old Chinese 
calendar. It gives you a year in the 5000's.
Multiply the year, month and day by pi, then by e^2. Apply any roll 
over. Convert any decimal in the year into months and days. Do the same 
for the month number.
Add the following digits after the year number: 0123.
Add a month and 4 days.

<:P

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/05/24 14:50, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 20:35:36 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>
>> Definition of SENILE
>> 1
>> : of, relating to, exhibiting, or characteristic of old age<senile
>> weakness>; especially : exhibiting a loss of mental faculties associated
>> with old age
>
> It's either that or 'crazy'.  I'm not entirely sure which.
>
> Jim

Looks like he's senility started about 30 years ago... but it did'nt 
show untill much later due to the slight paranoya and delusional disorder.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 May 2011 21:26:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 25/05/2011 5:54 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Or F'n con man
>> That seems most likely, considering the number of people who gave him
>> money for his ad campaign.
> 
> It just beggars belief that so many people fall for him and his like.

Yeah, that it does.

> But then Spam must pay someone.

True.

Jim

Post a reply to this message