🚀 go-pugleaf

<MisterScience@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:7v5qju$498$1@nnrp1.deja.com...

[..]

Or why not this one:


"The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556611609/qid%3D940997456/002-446065
7-4160639

Reviews
Synopsis
"Spiritual abuse" describes situations where seemingly spiritual means are
used by authority figures in an attempt to meet their own needs for
importance, power, intimacy, or spiritual gratification. Church members feel
manipulated, used and shamed. Now two pastors of a thriving suburban church
offer effective means for dealing with spiritual abuse.
Synopsis
David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen teach readers to recognize and escape
spiritual manipulation and false spiritual authority within the church.



--


          Regards,
          Niels U. Reinwald
          nur@softorange.com
          http://www.softorange.com

<MisterScience@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:7v5qju$498$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> There is a  vote is going on at Amazon.com
> for the best book of the millennium.
> It would be nice if a science book was selected. If we pool our efforts
> and vote in unison then maybe we can succeed. I've searched through
> the top-selling science books and I suggest that we vote for "The Bible
> According to Einstein: A Scientific Complement to the Holy Bible for
> the Third Millennium." Being a comprehensive summary of all scientific
> knowledge of the last two thousand years, it seems an appropriate
> choice.
>
> To vote go to http://www.amazon.com/ and click on "Enter to win."
>
> For the title entry, "The Bible According to Einstein" should suffice.
> There is no author listed for the book so leave that space blank.
> By the way, by voting you become eligible
> for Amazon.com's millennium giveaway contest.
>
> Tell your science friends to vote too.
>
> Long live science!
> Mister Science
>

You are suggesting we vote for a book we have not read   -and that you
haven't read either- just so a book on science is awarded the title of  '
book of the milennium'. So screw Dante, Shakespeare, Gongora and Borges.
Let's all vote for this little book -of unknown author - because mr science
thinks it is 'an appropriate choice'.  Cool, man. Who said that scientists
are nerds?

leo

What you are suggesting is totally unethical and is
a disservice to free thinkers--and it adds fuel for
our detractors just by suggesting such a thing.

B.W. Brew

MisterScience@altavista.net wrote:

> There is a  vote is going on at Amazon.com
> for the best book of the millennium.
> It would be nice if a science book was selected. If we pool our efforts
> and vote in unison then maybe we can succeed. I've searched through
> the top-selling science books and I suggest that we vote for "The Bible
> According to Einstein: A Scientific Complement to the Holy Bible for
> the Third Millennium." Being a comprehensive summary of all scientific
> knowledge of the last two thousand years, it seems an appropriate
> choice.
>
> To vote go to http://www.amazon.com/ and click on "Enter to win."
>
> For the title entry, "The Bible According to Einstein" should suffice.
> There is no author listed for the book so leave that space blank.
> By the way, by voting you become eligible
> for Amazon.com's millennium giveaway contest.
>
> Tell your science friends to vote too.
>
> Long live science!
> Mister Science
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

MisterScience@altavista.net wrote:
> 
> There is a  vote is going on at Amazon.com
> for the best book of the millennium. It would be nice if a science > book was selected. 

[snip]

A year premature if your are speaking of the "New" Millennium according
to the Gregorian [New Style} calendar. According to it, come 23:59:59
December 31st, only 1999 years lacking one second will have passed.
Being a contrary, what if I still use a Roman calendar? 

What if a SETI contact is made in August 2000, a "Science" article
written in September 2000, a book written in October 2000, and a
translation of the communication published in Novenber 2000. How and
when will it rate?

BTW, a millennium is a thousands years. You can, if you desire,
celebrate the passing of such any time you or Amazon.com desire. How
about tomorrow, Holloween?

-- 
RAMBLER III

"You must not spend your whole life looking for other people's 
systematic mistakes. You must make some of your own."
Peter Van de Kamp, Astronomer

MisterScience@altavista.net  a �crit :

>I suggest that we vote for "The Bible
>According to Einstein: A Scientific Complement to the Holy Bible for
>the Third Millennium." 

I will vote for whatever I damn well feel like, certainly not an
unread recommendation plucked from the Net.

If that's the best science book of the century, then you need to read
a few more. Feynman lectures ? Feynman autobiog ? Godel Escher Bach ?
French on Special Relativity ?  -- and those aren't even starting on
the life sciences.

The title implies a religious tract, not a science book. There can be
no "scientific complement" to the bible, for whilst science is not
incompatible with christianity, a blind faith in the bible is complete
anathema to the western scientific method (with all its faults)

Did Einstein ever endorse the bible ? Did he, in fact, ever make any
commentary on the science of the bible ?  A well-known dice-playing
quip was in relation to some aspects of quantuum uncertainty, which
was covered in no psalm with which I'm familiar.


To be blunt, you're a troll, a poor quality troll, and one who can't
hide their agenda very well.  Did you write this screed with your very
own green crayon, or did you merely pay for the vanity publisher ?



I will believe in an Einsteinian commentary on biblical science (sic)
on the day that Hewlett Packard's research lab starts to promote
homeopathy !
 

Andy Dingley wrote:

> [snip]

> A well-known dice-playing quip was in relation to some aspects of
> quantuum uncertainty, which was covered in no psalm with which I'm
> familiar.

I've always thought it unfair that we hardly ever hear the reply it
brought. Nils Bohr shot back "SHTOP TELLINK GOD VAT TO DO!!!"

rj

You talk about someone else's green crayon when you spell CREED---
( SCREED ) ???????
You may feel free to keep your science, I'll will keep my Bible, Good Day!!!



Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:3830185d.1271333460@news.demon.co.uk...
> MisterScience@altavista.net  a �crit :
>
> >I suggest that we vote for "The Bible
> >According to Einstein: A Scientific Complement to the Holy Bible for
> >the Third Millennium."
>
> I will vote for whatever I damn well feel like, certainly not an
> unread recommendation plucked from the Net.
>
> If that's the best science book of the century, then you need to read
> a few more. Feynman lectures ? Feynman autobiog ? Godel Escher Bach ?
> French on Special Relativity ?  -- and those aren't even starting on
> the life sciences.
>
> The title implies a religious tract, not a science book. There can be
> no "scientific complement" to the bible, for whilst science is not
> incompatible with christianity, a blind faith in the bible is complete
> anathema to the western scientific method (with all its faults)
>
> Did Einstein ever endorse the bible ? Did he, in fact, ever make any
> commentary on the science of the bible ?  A well-known dice-playing
> quip was in relation to some aspects of quantuum uncertainty, which
> was covered in no psalm with which I'm familiar.
>
>
> To be blunt, you're a troll, a poor quality troll, and one who can't
> hide their agenda very well.  Did you write this screed with your very
> own green crayon, or did you merely pay for the vanity publisher ?
>
>
>
> I will believe in an Einsteinian commentary on biblical science (sic)
> on the day that Hewlett Packard's research lab starts to promote
> homeopathy !
>

ted holiday wrote:
> 
> You talk about someone else's green crayon when you spell CREED---
> ( SCREED ) ???????
> You may feel free to keep your science, I'll will keep my Bible, Good Day!!!
> 

You really have to be careful when criticising other people's writing.
The Merriam Webster online dictionary gives us

########################
Main Entry: screed
Pronunciation: 'skrEd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English screde fragment, alteration of Old English
scrEade -- more at SHRED
Date: circa 1789
1 a : a lengthy discourse b : an informal piece of writing
########################
Main Entry: creed
Pronunciation: 'krEd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English crede, from Old English crEda, from Latin
credo (first word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), from credere to
believe, trust, entrust; akin to Old Irish cretid he believes,
Sanskrit srad-dadhAti
Date: before 12th century
1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2 : a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle
########################

I'll go with science, myself.

Roger
-- 
###################################################
# Warning: My return address MAY be spam-trapped. #
# It's not .NOT it's .NET                         #
###################################################