Fire!

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:00:28 -0800, Bob Ford
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:51:35 -0800, Icono Clast
wrote:

From another forum:
Cambrasa wrote:
National pride is the root cause of the worst atrocities commited
in the 20th century. I don't think that national pride is such a
good thing.


Peter D said:
memiki said:
I am unable to separate the Flag, the Presidency and the
Country from each other......instead they are bundled up in
one package.

Icono Clast said
{Clarification in [brackets] added}
I regard each of them as distinct and separate. I think [your
position] resembles the Catholics' trinity [as opposed to] the
separateness thereof by other Christians.

What a strange statement! Are you suggesting the Catholic doctrine
of the Trinity is not shared by other Christians?

Yes.

?????? The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental Christian
belief. The Catholic Church is a sub-set of "Chrisitan", not
distinct and separate from it, and as such shares that fundamental
belief.

I wasn't ignoring you, Peter D; I was on The Road, dancing in Reno
and at Michelle's Mountain Magic at Lake Tahoe.

While at that convention, one who participates in one of these two
fora shoved me up against a wall, stuck his nose onto mine ('til I
exhaled) and gave me a biblical quiz that I perfectly passed.
Wow Lew, you could get a job as a spin doctor for the democrats!
I am the person you refer to and let's just set some of the facts
straight....
1. I DID NOT shove you up against as a wall, as I recall the nearest
wall was at least 15 to 20 feet away from us.
2. I have no desires whatsoever to stick my nose onto yours, whether
you exhale or not.
3. I simply pointed out some things what Catholics seem to
practice of which no reference is in the Bible anywhere!

He then told me that non-Catholics regard the trinity the same as
Catholics do (if I have that wrong, he'll let us know).

You told me that your belief was that Catholics the Trinity as
being all encompassed into ONE entity. That is absolutely not true and
I even spoke to a Catholic priest today to verify that.
They believe the same as the Baptist Church I belong to that the
Trinity is 2 separate beings but all the same person. God the Father,
God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. This is a bit of a conflict to
what you wrote above....copied here just to make it easy for you.

should proof read better.........that should say 3 separate beings.
Icono Clast said
{Clarification in [brackets] added}
I regard each of them as distinct and separate. I think [your
position] resembles the Catholics' trinity [as opposed to] the
separateness thereof by other Christians.

I am amazed that you posted this since you seemed to be nice and
friendly to me in person. Is there something that being behind your
keyboard empowers you to post things that are absolutely not true.

I will have to remember this and be much more careful in engaging you
in any further personal conversations.

I think I was still a teen-ager when someone pointed out to me that
one of the big dif'rences 'tween the Catholics and other Christians
was that Catholics believe the three to be one and others the
Catholics' one to be three.

I was also under the impression that The Troubles in Ireland were
partly because of that, i.e., some good Irish Christians were killing
some other good Irish Christians because of some differences in the
interpretation of some Middle Eastern myth.

But they weren't alone: Good Jews were killing good Palestinian
Muslims and good Palestinian Muslims were killing good Jews.

And the Hindus/Muslims ought not be overlooked.

And, of course, 'though he'd deny it, because of a personal vendetta
the USA's Commander in Chief is leading a Crusade against Muslims
that he dubs "terrorists".

Ah, the peace preached by the godf's.

He's also ruining m'mother's death. In tears she screams "I want to
die. I HATE what that man's doing to my country". I wonder whether
being that angry's better'n being in pain. She's 94.
Bob Ford
Images In Motion
www.imagesinmotion.com
Bob Ford
Images In Motion
www.imagesinmotion.com

On 10/29/2007 5:23 PM plucked Senior Frog's Magic
Twanger and said:
On Oct 27, 4:00?am, Icono Clast wrote:

At the time of the Cedar Fire, I think, someone posted that the Idiot
in the White House had withdrawn expenditures to clear brush that
might have reduced the severity of that fire. I couldn't find the
post but I found some other stuff. The words might've been written a
few years ago but . . .

Here are some excerpts from relevant articles:

http://www.pe.com/breakingnews/local...cal_fund16.ecb...

CALIFORNIA OFFICIALS SAY BUSH IGNORED FIRE DANGER
OCTOBER 31, 2003 -- SACRAMENTO, CA: Ousted California Gov. Gray
Davis and state legislators are accusing the Bush administration of
ignoring urgent pleas made months ago for emergency funding to clear
beetle-killed trees that experts warned could fuel a catastrophic
southern California fire. In April, Davis requested $430 million to
reduce fuels on 415,000 acres of forest, but the request for
emergency funds went unanswered until last week -- and then was denied.

"There was a reason the governor requested the declaration," said
Davis staffer Steve Maviglio. "And I'm sure there are a lot of
families without homes that are disappointed it wasn't approved."
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Sen. Barbara Boxer
yesterday complained that President Bush had failed to act on the
state's request for help and that now Californians were suffering.
"We named three of the four counties that are up in smoke, and we
begged him to declare a disaster, we begged him," she said. "We saw
this coming a mile away."

FIRESTORMS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 30, 2003 -- LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA: Firefighters are struggling
to save emptied-out resort towns in the San Bernardino Mountains,
with 200-foot walls of fire washing over stands of drought-ravaged
bug-killed trees, stoked by Santa Ana winds from the desert to the east.

10:36 PM PDT on Saturday, May 15, 2004
By CLAIRE VITUCCI / Washington Bureau
. . . At a congressional hearing in Washington last week, Bruce
Turbeville, chairman of the California Fire Safe Council, complained
that local communities had submitted 393 requests for grants worth
$49 million to clear brush, but received only $7 million . . . John
Twiss, an assistant to Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, said the
Forest Service is shifting funds from private and state lands to
federal lands that are adjacent to private, state and county property
to protect neighboring communities . . . Meanwhile, Pollema said
she's been scouring the Internet for grant possibilities and said the
community is likely going to have to start holding fund-raisers.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/...PE_OpEd_Opinio...
Parched for fire help
. . . Federal officials have earmarked no disaster money for tree and
brush removal in the forest, though forest officials have $5 million
in other funding secured by Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands. That is
enough to tend about 2,000 acres of the roughly 672,000-acre forest . . .

http://www.wildfirenews.com/archive/120103.shtml
DOES SAN DIEGO COUNTY NEED A FIRE DEPARTMENT?
DECEMBER 01, 2003 -- SAN DIEGO, CA: San Diego County, which for
decades has been the only large California county without its own
fire department, is rethinking that position in the aftermath of the
Cedar Fire . . . November 26, 2003 . . . The fire-charred hills look
like graveyards of gnarled limbs and blackened dirt. "The soils in
southern California are very erosive," says Matt Mathes with the U.S.
Forest Service. "They fall down the slopes even naturally, and when
they get a lot of water on them, they tend to erode very readily in
the best of times. With the vegetation burned away, there's nothing
to hold the soil" . . .

CALIFORNIA FIRE LOSSES OVER $2 BILLION
NOVEMBER 19, 2003 -- SAN DIEGO, CA: Early estimates of $2 billion in
property damage have been verified by industry sources, according to
a North County Times report; the Cedar Fire in San Diego County and
the Old Fire near San Bernardino together accounted for at least
3,300 burned structures. The figures don't include all of the fire
damage in San Diego County, nor are fires in Los Angeles and Ventura
counties included in the estimate.

Some sources said the figure could run $2.5 billion to as much as $3
billion in insured losses; Robert Hartwig, chief economist of the
Insurance Information Institute, also has pegged the insured losses
for the two fires at $2.04 billion, and has said the number could
rise to $2.3 billion. Nearly 13,000 claims for damage have been
filed, and the policies represent a total coverage limit of just
under $3.5 billion.

Other disasters in California have cost more. The insured loss for
the Northridge earthquake in 1994 exceeded $12 billion, six times the
estimate for the Cedar and Old fires. As California fires go, the
champion for damage remains the blaze that engulfed San Francisco
after the 1906 earthquake. Total damage estimates for the San
Francisco fire approach $6 billion after adjusting for a century of
inflation, but most of that loss was uninsured.

RUIDOSO: THINGS LOOK DIFFERENT HERE
NOVEMBER 17, 2003 -- RUIDOSO, NM: . . . Homeowners and builders are
increasingly being told to protect themselves. Building codes are
being changed to require more fire-resistant construction materials,
and insurance companies are encouraging policyholders to make homes
safer or risk losing coverage.

But few communities have taken as comprehensive an approach as
Ruidoso. Two years ago the U.S. Forest Service designated the town as
the second-most-vulnerable community in the nation, based on forest
density and the mingling of homes and wildland. The village has
focused on public education and warning systems; emergency evacuation
routes are well marked with signs, and a "reverse 911" telephone
warning system can automatically notify hundreds of residents in just
minutes. New construction must adhere to a code requiring good access
for fire equipment, adequate water for firefighting, and
fire-resistant building materials.

Most important, Ruidoso crafted a comprehensive plan to thin forests
on its outskirts and on private land within town.

SAN DIEGO FLOODING FIXES IN THE WORKS
NOVEMBER 15, 2003 -- SAN DIEGO, CA: Erosion control experts from
local, state, and federal government agencies, along with a host of
volunteer workers, are preparing for mudslides and flooding after the
fires. The potential for heavier-than-usual runoff from rocky slopes
has had dozens of specialists out in the burned areas figuring how to
keep what's left from washing away. The Cedar and Paradise Fires
stripped many slopes of vegetation, and twice as much storm water
than normal could end up flowing down hillsides.

RESIDENTS WARNED ABOUT FLOODING
NOVEMBER, 2003 -- SUMMIT VALLEY, CA: As the residents who were
evacuated from the area of the Old Fire return to their homes and
resume their lives, federal and county officials are warning about
the possibility of mudslides and flooding . . .

THIS PLACE CALLED SOUTH OPS
NOVEMBER, 2003 -- SAN BERNARDINO
While turf battles and minor spitfights are still common, it's a lot
better than it was in 1961. That year, a firestorm swept through Bel
Air and Brentwood and destroyed more than 2,000 homes. The chaos that
year showed that fire agencies were working at cross purposes.

From: Icono Clast
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 03:16:05 -0700
Subject: Four questions for Mr Bush

Last week, I thought I couldn't possibly think less of that
despicably arrogant and incompetent son of Connecticut aristocracy.
This week, I'm seething to a self-damaging obsession. When Governor
George Wallace was shot, I had to force myself to say "That's no way
to do politics". Well, it might now be a way to help save the people
of Iraq, New Orleans, the USA, and the planet.

Pat Roberson? Are you there? What does "Take Him Out" mean? What I
mean is get him out of office any way necessary.

From: Icono Clast
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 04:31:03
Subject: OT: Political

wrote:

So, is this whole thing going to be blamed on the Governor because
it will be argued that "I need everything you have got" was not a
"specific" enough request?

That's virtually identical to my hypothetical Presidential order:
"Get down there to do anything you can with everything you have".

John Wheaton wrote:

From CNN Producer Mike M. Ahlers
Saturday, September 3, 2005; Posted: 6:09 a.m. EDT (10:09 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nine stockpiles of fire-and-rescue equipment
strategically placed around the country to be used in the event of
a catastrophe still have not been pressed into service in New
Orleans, five days after Hurricane Katrina, CNN has learned.
Responding to a CNN inquiry, Department of Homeland Security
spokesman Marc Short said Friday the gear has not been moved
because none of the governors in the hurricane-ravaged area has
requested it.

Where the **** is the humanity?!? You need ORDERS to go save lives?!?


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/0...ear/index.html

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com


Setting aside President Bush, the response of California government at
all levels has been quite good. Democrats and Republicans at state
and local levelsfunctioned together to expedite resource availability,
and our terrific and brave firefighters worked (and are still working)
tirelessly to fight the blazes.

Comparisons to Katrina are grossly unfair, as the scope of that
disaster was far greater. Nonetheless, in this case, California
government has worked, and worked well, so far.

David Koppelman


What I don't understand is why do people rebuild in disaster areas where
there has been more than one occurrence? If it's a flood plain, rebuild
someplace where it won't flood. If it's a fire zone, go where it
isn't. While I sympathize with anyone's property loss or loss of life
it can be avoided by living elsewhere. It might also result in better
expenditure of our resources to relocate away from these trouble spots.

--
________
To email me, Edit "blog" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once!"
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951

I had to reread a few times to try and sort out who said what to whom about
what and who believes what about whom and who misquoted which church or
doctrine, etc. Anyway, here's what I came up with:

Lew/Ike: You misrepresented "Catholic" and "Christan" doctrine, and showed
that you don't know much about the basics of either. Christans believe in
the Tirnitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). Catholics believe in the
Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). "Catholic" is a group that is
contained in "Christian". There is no conflict or difference between them on
this doctrine. While Catholics and other Christians differ in some area, the
Trinity is not one of them.

If you must represent what others believe, at least have the decency (and
respect for them and their beliefs) to learn what they believe. If you can't
be bothered to do that, then please be silent.

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:31:30 -0600, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

I had to reread a few times to try and sort out who said what to whom about
what and who believes what about whom and who misquoted which church or
doctrine, etc. Anyway, here's what I came up with:

Lew/Ike: You misrepresented "Catholic" and "Christan" doctrine, and showed
that you don't know much about the basics of either. Christans believe in
the Tirnitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). Catholics believe in the
Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). "Catholic" is a group that is
contained in "Christian". There is no conflict or difference between them on
this doctrine. While Catholics and other Christians differ in some area, the
Trinity is not one of them.

Although non-trinitarianism is one of the heresies that were
persecuted way back around the time of the Council of Nicea,
there have since developed some branches of protestantism that do
not accept the Trinity, most notably Unitarianism, which sprang
up in the area of Transylvania several centuries ago. As the name
implies, they reject the Trinity. In the last fifty or so years
the American arm of Unitarianism has rejected so much dogma that
the membership is no longer sure it should be considered
Christian, but I believe the European branches, especially
Transylvanian, are still Christians.

If you must represent what others believe, at least have the decency (and
respect for them and their beliefs) to learn what they believe. If you can't
be bothered to do that, then please be silent.

I think you also cannot be bothered to read the history of the
Christian church.

I admit though, that it may be that you are arguing from your own
conclusion that acceptance of the Trinity defines Christianity
therefore anyone who does not accept the Trinity is, ipso facto,
not a Christian.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

http://tinyurl.com/2yfrln
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:31:30 -0600, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

I had to reread a few times to try and sort out who said what to whom
about
what and who believes what about whom and who misquoted which church or
doctrine, etc. Anyway, here's what I came up with:

Lew/Ike: You misrepresented "Catholic" and "Christan" doctrine, and showed
that you don't know much about the basics of either. Christans believe in
the Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). Catholics believe in
the
Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). "Catholic" is a group that
is
contained in "Christian". There is no conflict or difference between them
on
this doctrine. While Catholics and other Christians differ in some area,
the
Trinity is not one of them.

snip info on unitarianism - useful, but irrelevant

If you must represent what others believe, at least have the decency (and
respect for them and their beliefs) to learn what they believe. If you
can't
be bothered to do that, then please be silent.

I think you also cannot be bothered to read the history of the
Christian church.

I know the history of Christianity quite well. You assumed that I was
stating that non-Trinitarians are not Christians. You were wrong. If you
can't follow the dotted line, I can't help you.

I admit though, that it may be that you are arguing from your own
conclusion that acceptance of the Trinity defines Christianity
therefore anyone who does not accept the Trinity is, ipso facto,
not a Christian.

You'd be right if that's what I actually said. But I didn't.
HAND

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:31:30 -0600, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

I had to reread a few times to try and sort out who said what to whom about
what and who believes what about whom and who misquoted which church or
doctrine, etc. Anyway, here's what I came up with:

Lew/Ike: You misrepresented "Catholic" and "Christan" doctrine, and showed
that you don't know much about the basics of either. Christans believe in
the Tirnitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). Catholics believe in the
Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). "Catholic" is a group that is
contained in "Christian". There is no conflict or difference between them on
this doctrine. While Catholics and other Christians differ in some area, the
Trinity is not one of them.

If you must represent what others believe, at least have the decency (and
respect for them and their beliefs) to learn what they believe. If you can't
be bothered to do that, then please be silent.

Excellent suggestion!

He might also learn to report the facts correctly about personal
conversations he has with someone.

He can probably explain his atheistic views and beliefs to you very
well.
Bob Ford
Images In Motion
www.imagesinmotion.com

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:15:55 -0600, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:31:30 -0600, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

I had to reread a few times to try and sort out who said what to whom
about
what and who believes what about whom and who misquoted which church or
doctrine, etc. Anyway, here's what I came up with:

Lew/Ike: You misrepresented "Catholic" and "Christan" doctrine, and showed
that you don't know much about the basics of either. Christans believe in
the Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). Catholics believe in
the
Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit). "Catholic" is a group that
is
contained in "Christian". There is no conflict or difference between them
on
this doctrine. While Catholics and other Christians differ in some area,
the
Trinity is not one of them.

snip info on unitarianism - useful, but irrelevant

If you must represent what others believe, at least have the decency (and
respect for them and their beliefs) to learn what they believe. If you
can't
be bothered to do that, then please be silent.

I think you also cannot be bothered to read the history of the
Christian church.

I know the history of Christianity quite well. You assumed that I was
stating that non-Trinitarians are not Christians.

It's difficult to interpret your statement, "Christans believe in
the Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit)" that way. if
you meant otherwise you should have said so.

You were wrong. If you
can't follow the dotted line, I can't help you.

I jsut showed you the dotted line.

I admit though, that it may be that you are arguing from your own
conclusion that acceptance of the Trinity defines Christianity
therefore anyone who does not accept the Trinity is, ipso facto,
not a Christian.

You'd be right if that's what I actually said. But I didn't.
HAND

Yes you did. You said "Christans believe in the Trinitarian view
of God (Father, Son, Spirit)". You didn't say "Some Christans
believe in the Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit)


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" wrote
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:15:55 -0600, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:
"Hatunen" wrote in message
I admit though, that it may be that you are arguing from your own
conclusion that acceptance of the Trinity defines Christianity
therefore anyone who does not accept the Trinity is, ipso facto,
not a Christian.

You'd be right if that's what I actually said. But I didn't.
HAND

Yes you did. You said "Christans believe in the Trinitarian view
of God (Father, Son, Spirit)". You didn't say "Some Christans
believe in the Trinitarian view of God (Father, Son, Spirit)

You removed the quote from the context. I said, "Christian believe this...
Catholics believe this...". The "this" being idientical to counter what
Lew/Ike stated (that they believed differently). Hump my cyber-leg some more
if you must. Be offended if it strokes your ego. I don't care. This is the
end of the conversation as far as I'm concerned.

Hatunen wrote:
some branches of protestantism that do not accept the Trinity

I guess that's what I was told about when a youth. I was probably
told by a protestant who believed it had to do with protestantism in
general rather than a particular branch thereof. I was too ignorant
to know any better and too disinterested to give a damn.

Peter D said:
If you must represent what others believe, at least have the decency (and
respect for them and their beliefs) to learn what they believe.

You've seen the tagline before.

Obviously I thought I knew. Apparently I did not. You're welcome to
seek, and point out, my future mistakes. You have my personal
guarantee that they'll appear.

I admit though, that it may be that you are arguing from your own
conclusion that acceptance of the Trinity defines Christianity
therefore anyone who does not accept the Trinity is, ipso facto,
not a Christian.

No, and I carefully reviewed what I did say. I neither said nor
believe that "the Trinity defines Christianity". I believe that
belief in the trinity distinguishes Roman Catholics from other
Christians. Well, believed that 'til I was informed, this past
week-end and repeated here, that all Christians believe in the trinity.

That's news t'me.

--
__________________________________________________ _________________
A San Franciscan whose respect for each religion is equal.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ --- http://geocities.com/iconoc/
TouringSFO: http://geocities.com/touringsfo/ - IClast @ Gmail.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com