[PLUG-TALK] Re: PLUG-talk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 4
plug_0 at robinson-west.com
plug_0 at robinson-west.com
Wed Apr 6 19:09:55 UTC 2005
Quoting plug-talk-request at lists.pdxlinux.org:
> Send PLUG-talk mailing list submissions to
> plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> plug-talk-request at lists.pdxlinux.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> plug-talk-owner at lists.pdxlinux.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of PLUG-talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: PLUG-talk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 3 (plug_0 at robinson-west.com)
> 2. Re: Re: PLUG-talk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 3 (Russ Johnson)
> 3. Battery Houses in Portland? (Paul Mullen)
> 4. Re: Battery Houses in Portland? (Paul Johnson)
> 5. Battery Houses in Portland? (Rich Shepard)
> 6. Re: Battery Houses in Portland? (Galen Seitz)
> 7. Re: Battery Houses in Portland? (Rich Shepard)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 14:35:45 -0700
> From: plug_0 at robinson-west.com
> Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Re: PLUG-talk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 3
> To: plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> Message-ID: <1112564145.425061b1e1480 at xerxes.robinson-west.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Quoting plug-talk-request at lists.pdxlinux.org:
>
> > Send PLUG-talk mailing list submissions to
> > plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > plug-talk-request at lists.pdxlinux.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > plug-talk-owner at lists.pdxlinux.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of PLUG-talk digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Terry vs John Paul II (Russ Johnson)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 14:26:16 -0800
> > From: Russ Johnson <russj at dimstar.net>
> > Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Terry vs John Paul II
> > To: Random clatter and time wasting chat
> > <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
> > Message-ID: <424F1C08.8050104 at dimstar.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > Here's some other things to think about.
> >
> > The Pope died today. On Thursday, they administered the last rites, for
> > the third time in his life. They knew his time was near. John Paul
> > stated that he did not want any further life support measures taken.
> >
> > When Terry was on life support, her husband told the world that Terry
> > did not want to have her life artificially supported. We have no reason
> > to doubt the words of her husband.
> >
> > Why is this different?
> >
> > Another thing. You state that you must protect life, at all costs.
> > Didn't the Pope fail to do that? Doesn't using life support in the first
> > place keep a faithful person from ascending to heaven? What if God
> > wanted to take you, but life support was keeping you stuck here on earth?
> >
> > Why do religious people scare the hell out of children by telling them
> > that God will someday take them to heaven, away from their parents and
> > friends? If you don't think that's true, I have some kids I'd like to
> > introduce to you.
> >
> > --
> > Russ Johnson
> > Dimension 7/Stargate Online
> > http://www.dimstar.net
>
> (
> Terry has died. Her body, home of her spirit and a home for
> the triune God, will not be buried in one place, but dispersed as
> mere dust. No life support system has ever kept a person alive
> indefinitely, this is beyond the abilities of medical science.
> No natural means of prolonging a human life indefinitely exists.
>
> No extraordinary means of life support were used in Terry Shiavo's
> case as defined by the late pope, John Paul II. Ordinary means
> weren't employed either.
>
> Show a little respect for the recently deceased Terry Shiavo Russ.
> The Pope was not murdered. There's little if anything that life
> support could have done for him. Terry Shiavo was murdered
> through the witholding of the most basic care a patient can
> receive.
> )
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:50:15 -0700
> From: Russ Johnson <russj at dimstar.net>
> Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Re: PLUG-talk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 3
> To: Random clatter and time wasting chat
> <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
> Message-ID: <42507327.5030303 at dimstar.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> plug_0 at robinson-west.com wrote:
>
> >(
> >Terry has died. Her body, home of her spirit and a home for
> >the triune God, will not be buried in one place, but dispersed as
> >mere dust. No life support system has ever kept a person alive
> >indefinitely, this is beyond the abilities of medical science.
> >No natural means of prolonging a human life indefinitely exists.
> >
> >No extraordinary means of life support were used in Terry Shiavo's
> >case as defined by the late pope, John Paul II. Ordinary means
> >weren't employed either.
> >
> >Show a little respect for the recently deceased Terry Shiavo Russ.
> >The Pope was not murdered. There's little if anything that life
> >support could have done for him. Terry Shiavo was murdered
> >through the witholding of the most basic care a patient can
> >receive.
> >)
> >
> >
> And once again, you prove that you can not discuss things in a rational
> manner.
>
> The fact that they both have died does not make the debate moot. In
> fact, it makes the debate all that more important. But you choose to
> hide behind rhetoric.
>
> According to the law, no one was murdered. Given the same circumstances,
> I would like to be treated with the same compassion, and let my brain
> dead body expire, rather than wither away to nothing resembling the
> beautiful person that once inhabited this ugly bag of mostly water.
>
> Of course, I should have known that you, in your religious zeal, would
> sidestep all the questions put before you, and not really think about
> the truth of this matter. It's so much easier to simply decide to adopt
> the party line, and not actually make a decision for yourself. But then,
> you don't believe in free-will either, do you.
>
> --
> Russ Johnson
> Dimension 7/Stargate Online
> http://www.dimstar.net
(
I better not disagree with you Russ ;-) I believe in free will.
I also believe that God knows everything. Terry Shiavo wasn't
brain dead the whole time. You have a very narrow idea of
beauty if you think it's limited to physical appearance, then
again, why argue with you? When you die, your opinions will die
with you.
Myself, I prefer the way the the pope died over the way that
Terry died.
If free will for you means doing the opposite of what every
higher power in the universe wants you to do, good luck
with that. I guess that in God we Trust on the money
offends you, or am I wrong.
)
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list