View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Steve Lunetta: Wisdom just ain't what it used to be

Posted: February 10, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: February 10, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

“Hear, my son, your father’s instruction
And do not forsake your mother’s teaching;
Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head
And ornaments about your neck.”

New American Standard Bible, Prov 1:8-9

Yeah, all you anti-God types out there already tuned me out. That’s OK. I don’t mind. But, maybe a few of you will hang around to read what I have to say.

The Bible has many good things in it. Even if you are not a Christian, there are so many pearls of great price in it that immensely enrich our lives. That is, if we are willing to practice them.

Take this little snippet from Proverbs. What this is basically saying is listen to your mom and dad. They have valuable things to share with you that will cause you benefit in the long run if you heed them.

Do moms and dads tell their kids wrong things so that they will be harmed intentionally? Of course not. Mom and Dad have “been there, done that” and are trying to impart some experience on their progeny.

Or, dare we use the word “wisdom”?

That word has such a bad connotation today. The media equates wisdom with old thinking, narrow-mindedness, shackles of the past and morbidity. The young, poisoned by this thinking, fail to listen and wind up making horrible and fateful mistakes.

Granted, every generation seems to go through this process. The younger generation shakes their fist at the older and loudly claims, “I’m not going to be like you!” but then eventually gains the wisdom to become the responsible older generation.

I was a typical teenager and college kid. I was convinced that my parents were stupid and I was all-knowing, until I had my epiphany.

During my senior year in college, I was washing my clothes in an apartment laundry room, wondering how much detergent and softener to use, where it went in the stupid machine and what buttons to push. I decided to call my mom and ask.

After she helped me get the clothes going and I hung up the phone, I began to realize how smart my mom was. Me, the smart college guy, did not have the brains to wash my boxer shorts. What an idiot.

Maybe I needed to learn how to put my pride aside, realize that I needed help, and ask the person that I knew was qualified to help me: Mom.

When I read about Governor Brown calling the new Congressional drought bill “divisive,” I was reminded of my same scenario.

Our state is out of water. For too many years, the Democrats that controlled Sacramento were too busy handing out big checks to public employee unions, creating new entitlements for people that did not need them and creating useless public works projects (bullet train anyone?) that they neglected basic needs like roads and water.

Essentially, our Legislature’s irresponsible behavior has got us into this position.

The United States Congress, with HR 3964, hopes to fix these issues by allowing farmers to increase pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and create a Congressional committee to begin addressing water problems in the west.

Rather than listening to the feds who are trying to help the Golden State fix a mess of our own creation, Brown’s response sounds almost teenager-like: We don’t have a problem. We don’t need your help. We don’t need to listen to you.

Quite unfortunate. I think one of the biggest turning points in my life was to start listening to people with the knowledge and experience that I did not have. By doing so, maybe I could avoid the problems and pitfalls that happened to them.

It amazes me how some people will not listen to sound advice. It could be arrogance, it could be pride, it could be self-delusion, or maybe a combination thereof. Many folks go through life never listening to the advice of others.
Those individuals will have a diluted impact in life. Man learns from his fellow man. Man learns from his mom and dad.

Jerry Brown needs to learn from those in Congress who have better ideas for water than what has been practiced in the past.

Steve Lunetta is a resident of Santa Clarita and realizes he still has much to learn. He can be reached at slunetta63@yahoo.com.

Comments

Indy: Posted: February 10, 2014 1:08 p.m.

Lunetta write: Yeah, all you anti-God types out there already tuned me out. That’s OK. I don’t mind. But, maybe a few of you will hang around to read what I have to say.

Indy: I think the writer misses the point on those of us that are not believers in super natural beings.

We do respect that every person believer or not can be connected ‘spiritually’ and not ‘hate’ anyone.

I think some of the Bible’s moral parables may still be valid in the modern world but many are not.

Mankind has learned a lot since the days of those that wrote the Bible two thousand years ago and ignoring that knowledge is not ‘wisdom’.

In any event I’ll address the drought in a later post . . .


philellis: Posted: February 10, 2014 1:33 p.m.

In any event I’ll address the drought in a later post . . .

Why?


therightstuff: Posted: February 10, 2014 2:44 p.m.

Indy: """Mankind has learned a lot since the days of those that wrote the Bible two thousand years ago and ignoring that knowledge is not ‘wisdom’."""


"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21-22)

Sounds pretty accurate to me.


17trillion: Posted: February 10, 2014 2:48 p.m.

"In any event I’ll address the drought in a later post . . ."


Ohhhhh....I'm all a'quiver! Please don't post without me.


technologist: Posted: February 10, 2014 3:09 p.m.

Mr. Lunetta is astray here. Why are CA state water issues a matter for Congress?

I concur that we have incompetent representatives in Sacramento but that's for Californians to remedy.


philellis: Posted: February 10, 2014 3:21 p.m.

California is lead by Dems and the House has a Rep majority. Tech, it is all politics - nothing will get done - unless we get a lot of snow and rain. It is God's hands (or mother nature's, if you prefer).


technologist: Posted: February 10, 2014 4:24 p.m.

California is run by a single-party in state government. My point was it's not the responsibility of the Feds. By the way, we're less important than the Delta Smelt to the Feds.

Californians are getting exactly the level of state government competence they voted for.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 10, 2014 5:52 p.m.

Indy proclaimed.."I think some of the Bible’s moral parables may still be valid in the modern world but many are not."

What are some that are not?


CaptGene: Posted: February 10, 2014 6:51 p.m.

Great challenge emheilbrun. Expect volumes of nonsense but not a single example.


BrianBaker: Posted: February 10, 2014 7:11 p.m.

"In any event I’ll address the drought in a later post . . . "


A looming threat. All should prepare for a deluge of American socialist talking points ensconced within a a veritable barrage of boring and irrelevant pseudo- and faux-science.


ricketzz: Posted: February 11, 2014 6:00 a.m.

If the Delta Smelt goes we're not too far behind. The point of the Endangered Species Act is to prevent irreversible damage, before it affects higher life forms. That little tiny fish is taking one for the team.


chico: Posted: February 11, 2014 7:08 a.m.

Whose fault is it?

I say whoever smelt it dealt it.


Indy: Posted: February 11, 2014 12:20 p.m.

emheilbrun wrote: Indy proclaimed.."I think some of the Bible’s moral parables may still be valid in the modern world but many are not."

What are some that are not?

Indy: I’ve already addressed many of them . . . try giving it a guess.

In any event, we need to base our government policies on things that provide ‘reproducible’ results versus that based on outdated sections of scripture.

Individuals can still practice their ‘private and personal’ religious beliefs but we shouldn’t implement them to policy if they don’t work.

The other puzzling thing about Lunetta’s ‘hate God’ statement is the fear that he must enveloped in when other Americans don’t believe as he does.

I wonder if he feels that all other religions that don’t believe as he does hate his deity.

That’s the true tragedy of religious beliefs when taken to an extreme.

Thankfully many people of all faiths simply want to ‘coexist’ peacefully.

Sounds like a plan . . .


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 12:37 p.m.

"The Bible has many good things in it. Even if you are not a Christian, there are so many pearls of great price in it that immensely enrich our lives. That is, if we are willing to practice them."

And *so many* that are, well, less of a good thing :).


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 1:33 p.m.

emheilbrun, did I call it, or what?


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 2:35 p.m.

CG...honestly? Do we have to dig out biblical teachings on slavery, rape, murder, etc.?

Sigh. Okay, here's one:


Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekelsof silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 2:38 p.m.

My personal favorite...Deuteronomy 22:11

"Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together."

Now THERE'S a valuable lesson for you! (I wonder, though...is it okay to wear a cotton shirt and a silk tie? Will god smite a person who does? Tsk tsk.)


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 3:12 p.m.

Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless. - Ecclesiastes 7:6


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 3:40 p.m.

Even the bible uses ad hominem "arguments". Interesting.


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 4:27 p.m.

Oh, did you think it applied to you, Steve?

Here's another:

John 8:1-11
New International Version (NIV)
8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 4:31 p.m.

Awww, isn't that sweet? Everyone's favorite story from the New Testament, Mary Magdalene.

But what about the law, which the "teachers of the law" apparently had stated correctly? Or was Jesus a sort of early criminal defense lawyer, twisting words so that his client would escape punishment for her crimes?

I didn't hear anyone say she wasn't guilty, nor that he law about stoning her for her crimes was in error.


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 4:36 p.m.

If you're looking for an argument, I'll provide one.

Mocking the religious beliefs of your fellow citizens is puerile and a fool's errand. In the social graces, it's the equivalent of telling a new mother her baby is ugly. It's not something a gentleman does.

Or did your parents raise you without manners?


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 6:13 p.m.

Here steve, read this, then go back and see if you actually posted parbles:

par·a·ble

noun
1. a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 6:16 p.m.

It's always fun to listen to an atheist try and explain Christianity.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 11, 2014 7:01 p.m.

Indy proclaimed.."I think some of the Bible’s moral parables may still be valid in the modern world but many are not."

I asked: What are some that are not?

Indy replied: "I’ve already addressed many of them . . . try giving it a guess."

CG: Bingo!

Indy, typical reply devoid of substance and integrity. Just what CG predicted. If nothing else, you are consistent.


Indy: Posted: February 11, 2014 7:05 p.m.

emheilbrun wrote: Indy, typical reply devoid of substance and integrity. Just what CG predicted. If nothing else, you are consistent.

Indy: I’ve written this stuff many times . . . even recently.

If you choose not to read my post or ignore them, that’s always your choice . . .

In any event, again, we don’t want to use religious conservative beliefs in government that don’t work.

Other than that, you’re free to believe and act individually any old way you see fit.


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:10 p.m.

"It's always fun to listen to an atheist try and explain Christianity."

It's even more fun to watch people ASSume things about atheists. For example, that we weren't at one time devout Christians, or that we didn't have a pretty good education including many years of religion classes in prep school, or that we didn't take comparative religious studies courses in college, or...well, you get the idea.


stevehw: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:12 p.m.

"Mocking the religious beliefs of your fellow citizens is puerile and a fool's errand."

We'll try to remember this statement the next time Islam comes up on these discussion boards.

Does this same rule apply to atheism, by the way? Or is the politesse reserved for deistic beliefs?


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:26 p.m.

So, steve, are you saying that you were a devout Christian, and, in addition to that you took many years of religion classes in prep school and comparative religious studies courses in college?


CaptGene: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:35 p.m.

Don't you all love watching Indy Nile do the Ecclesiastic Shuffle. This reminds me of another post by Mr. Nile where his BS collapsed when faced with the simplest of challenges.

Which post was that, you ask?

All of them!


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 8:38 p.m.

Islam is also a political system, i.e. sharia law. No doubt you'll keep that in mind as well. Also, mocking is not the same as a civil intellectual critique.

Since you're an atheist, you're likely in the best position to answer your query, Steve. Is atheism a religious belief?


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:39 p.m.

What do *you* think, CG? Sheesh.

tech...No, Atheism is not a religious belief. Does that mean that it's now okay for you to mock it?


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:45 p.m.

I think not, that's why I asked you. Why are you pulling an Indy Nile? Straight forward question.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 10:48 p.m.

"Islam is also a political system, i.e. sharia law"

In many regards, the same is true of many western civilizations whose laws have roots in Judaeo-Christian beliefs. As a ready example, the antipathy that some (certainly not all) Christian sects have towards same-sex marriage, which they want codified into civil law.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:00 p.m.

Why do you think not? Is it entirely inconceivable to you that an Atheist might (gasp) have previously been educated in some religious belief? Or studied various religions?


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:01 p.m.

Not at all inconceivable, but given your reticence to answer the question (along with other things) I find it doubtful in your case. --edited.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:03 p.m.

In Islam, there is no secular state, a clear demarcation from the West.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:08 p.m.

"tech...No, Atheism is not a religious belief. Does that mean that it's now okay for you to mock it?"

No, I'm tolerant and recommend others are as well.


ricketzz: Posted: February 12, 2014 6:54 a.m.

As I understand the Bible, the New part negates the Old part. Jesus said to forget the rules and follow your conscience. Golden rule, all that.

People who quote chapter and verse to make a point in the secular world are idiots.


ricketzz: Posted: February 12, 2014 6:59 a.m.

""We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American. We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today's American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously." -Paul Weyrich (he is a traitor, he wrote the blueprint for the fake T-Party)


emheilbrun: Posted: February 12, 2014 7:11 a.m.

Indy: I’ve written this stuff many times . . . even recently.

Yeah, well you've mentioned that you have your MBA almost daily. You seem to have no qualms repeating that ad nauseam.


Indy: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:37 a.m.

emheilbrun wrote: Indy: I’ve written this stuff many times . . . even recently.

Yeah, well you've mentioned that you have your MBA almost daily. You seem to have no qualms repeating that ad nauseam.

Indy: I’m not sure since I know you’ve responded to my comments to Hegg using his scripture about work to degenerate poor people without jobs . . . criticizing them for using ‘safety nets’ which Hegg went on and on about ‘entitlements’.

This is followed by my remarks where religious conservatives in the House cite scripture to keep from feeding poor people (think SNAP).

And now we see republicans showing their economic ignorance by again, citing biblical work requirements (think Paul Ryan) in holding up extending unemployment benefits (benefits by the way paid for) that address the worst recession since the depression created under Bush 2 and aided by multinationals corporations off shoring Americans jobs.

Paul Ryan is perhaps the most economically ignorant politician in Washington yet he’s constantly put on display on Fox and other conservative news outlets?

Does any of this ring a bell?

I think you’ve got to keep what we debate here in mind before asking for repetition but I guess it’s worthwhile to again show why republicans are simply out of touch with mainstream America.

And yes, my MBA and business experience do indeed make for a good combination to address economic issues when they become clouded with religious dogma. Glad to be of service. And isn’t that why we get an education to understand the issues around us? Yep.


Indy: Posted: February 12, 2014 11:44 a.m.

ricketzz wrote: ""We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American. We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today's American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously." -Paul Weyrich

Indy: Sounds like a theocrat with little understanding of basic economics and business.

And indeed, he cites the key word here: culture.

That’s the cornerstone of religious conservativism in that anyone that not a religious conservative, is to be scorned, cast out, denigrated, and otherwise shown not to be an American!

The sad part in all of this is the ‘originalist’ view of the Founding Fathers to ‘separate church and state’ in the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .

I like Thomas Jefferson’s take on the separate in the Bradbury letter:

Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut. January 1, 1802. by Thomas Jefferson



Gentlemen, — The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Indy: Enuf said!


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:17 p.m.

Indy: "Enuf said!"

Promise? We'd all appreciate a respite from the tedium of your logorrhea.

"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason." - B. Franklin


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:32 p.m.

That's quite a display of tolerance there, tech.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 12, 2014 12:50 p.m.

Less tolerance on it's way....

Indy: I’m not sure since I know you’ve responded to my comments to Hegg using his scripture about work to degenerate poor people without jobs . . . criticizing them for using ‘safety nets’ which Hegg went on and on about ‘entitlements’.

Indy, Hegg never used scripture about work. No sense in asking you to provide the quote, it's not there. This is your reading comprehension problem manifesting itself.

Indy, you proclaimed: "I think some of the Bible’s moral parables may still be valid in the modern world but many are not."

I asked you to cite some that are not. You did not.

And as for your MBA, I'm just going to get this off my chest once and for all. Let's get real, and I write this as a CSUN graduate, CSUN is hardly an elite school. While you denigrate others as economically illiterate and waive your CSUN MBA around like it's the Congressional Medal of Honor, the reality is that there are MBA's from Stanford, Harvard, Wharton, etc. that wouldn't find the paper your diploma is printed on worthy of wiping their butts with. So get over yourself. I'm happy you have an MBA, but I'm not impressed.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 1:16 p.m.

"That's quite a display of tolerance there, tech."

To clarify, Steve, I'm not tolerant of pedants who make boasts such as this:

"That’s one of the reasons why it appears I know all the answers since I have the MBA plus the years of experience running a business." - Indy


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 1:19 p.m.

So steve, still dodging the question about your former Christianity and religious education? I'm really curious as to why you are afraid to answer that question.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 1:25 p.m.

So far, Indy Nile has posted 418 words in response to emheilbrun's parable challenge without meeting the challenge itself. Most people would be embarrassed by that level of failure, but not Indy Nile, which is why he's known as "Indy Nile".


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 1:57 p.m.

CG...I already answered it. And why are you so curious about my educational background? Seems kind of creepy to me...in one of those weird, Internet-stalker sort of ways.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 2:28 p.m.

You didn't answer it steve, you danced around it, like so:

CG: "So, steve, are you saying that you were a devout Christian, and, in addition to that you took many years of religion classes in prep school and comparative religious studies courses in college?"

stevehw: "What do *you* think, CG? Sheesh."

CG: "I think not, that's why I asked you."

stevehw: "Why do you think not? Is it entirely inconceivable to you that an Atheist might (gasp) have previously been educated in some religious belief? Or studied various religions?"

CG: "Not at all inconceivable, but given your reticence to answer the question (along with other things) I find it doubtful in your case."

Very mealy mouthed. A simple "yes" or "no" to my initial question.

Looks to me like you backed yourself in a corner and you realize it.


Indy: Posted: February 12, 2014 2:55 p.m.

emheilbrun wrote: Less tolerance on it's way....

Indy: I’m not sure since I know you’ve responded to my comments to Hegg using his scripture about work to degenerate poor people without jobs . . . criticizing them for using ‘safety nets’ which Hegg went on and on about ‘entitlements’.

Indy, Hegg never used scripture about work. No sense in asking you to provide the quote, it's not there. This is your reading comprehension problem manifesting itself.

Indy: Oh . . . I’ve got copies of what he wrote . . . we’ll dissect it again as time permits.

Suffice it to say that he follows the religious conservative plea that people without jobs are ‘lazy’ and that the poor should just see it as a ‘virtue’.

As long as that guy doesn’t get into economics, he’s free to provide his beliefs. But when he crosses over and brutalizing people, then I come in.


Indy: Posted: February 12, 2014 3:02 p.m.

emheilbrun wrote: Indy, you proclaimed: "I think some of the Bible’s moral parables may still be valid in the modern world but many are not."

I asked you to cite some that are not. You did not.

Indy: Already done:

I’m not sure since I know you’ve responded to my comments to Hegg using his scripture about work to degenerate poor people without jobs . . . criticizing them for using ‘safety nets’ which Hegg went on and on about ‘entitlements’.

This is followed by my remarks where religious conservatives in the House cite scripture to keep from feeding poor people (think SNAP).

And now we see republicans showing their economic ignorance by again, citing biblical work requirements (think Paul Ryan) in holding up extending unemployment benefits (benefits by the way paid for) that address the worst recession since the depression created under Bush 2 and aided by multinationals corporations off shoring Americans jobs.

emheilbrun wrote: And as for your MBA, I'm just going to get this off my chest once and for all. Let's get real, and I write this as a CSUN graduate, CSUN is hardly an elite school. While you denigrate others as economically illiterate and waive your CSUN MBA around like it's the Congressional Medal of Honor, the reality is that there are MBA's from Stanford, Harvard, Wharton, etc. that wouldn't find the paper your diploma is printed on worthy of wiping their butts with. So get over yourself. I'm happy you have an MBA, but I'm not impressed.

Indy: I just cite the ideology failure of conservatism.

As far as the MBA from CSUN, I find it to be commensurate with other more high profile schools.

The professors that taught my classes were ‘working professionals’ during the day while teaching something they had passion for at night.

In any event, I understand the dilemma you face . . . for example, why didn’t the Council of Economic Advisors or the FED predict the crash of 2007? Bernanke was from Harvard, wasn’t he? And these folks were even predicting 4th quarter growth!

In any event, you can look for ‘celebrity’ economist as you see fit. I’m just here explaining the fundamental issues that many economist can’t see.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 3:13 p.m.

No corners here, CaptStalker. That's all in YOUR mind.


technologist: Posted: February 12, 2014 4:12 p.m.

"But when he crosses over and brutalizing people, then I come in." - Indy

Ride on, valiant champion! <snicker>


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 5:10 p.m.

OK then steve, in that case, since you obviously know nothing about Christianity, it would behoove you to not lecture us on it. You may want to consider actually taking some of those classes that you and your fellow atheists fantasize about; maybe then you'll be less likely to be as ill-informed as you obviously are.


stevehw: Posted: February 12, 2014 5:11 p.m.

Oh, how wrong you are, cyberstalker.


CaptGene: Posted: February 12, 2014 5:20 p.m.

Says the guy that didn't even know what a "parable" was.

Let that sink in; stevehw took to lecturing us on religion when he didn't even have a grasp on the meaning of the word parable. Incredible.

Then, realizing he was backed in a corner, steve tried to deflect with a set of phony credentials that were laughable in light of his obvious religious ignorance.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 12, 2014 5:30 p.m.

Indy: Oh . . . I’ve got copies of what he wrote . . . we’ll dissect it again as time permits.

Indy, we don't have to dissect anything. Just give me one direct quote from Hegg and one parable from the Bible and we can call it a day.


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:29 p.m.

I think it's YOU who doesn't know what a parable is...the passage about Mary Magdalene was *not* a parable (normally a story told *by* Jesus is considered a parable). This was something written *about* him.

The difference is pretty basic. Spent quite a bit of time on this in a course on the synoptic gospels.

Let me state this unequivocally for you, wise guy. I took four years of religion classes at a Catholic school, was born and raised Catholic, took several university classes on comparative religion at an Ivy League university, was a devout Catholic for many years, even having gone through several steps in the process of applying for and being interviewed for the priesthood.

So you can take your smart-mouth attitude and condescending, judgemental, sarcastic lies and shove them you know where.


CaptGene: Posted: February 13, 2014 10:58 p.m.

Oh really, well I was on the short list to become Pope, but I backed out because it would interfere with my competition in Sochi. So, who's the wise guy now?

When the challenge was to provide examples of the "Bible’s moral parables" that are no longer valid. You went to Deuteronomy. Either you didn't understand the question or you don't know what a parable is, or you intentionally chose The Old Testament because it furthered your anti Christian beliefs.

Oh, and I know what a parable is, remember? I'm the one that (once again) had to provide you with the definition. Given your inability to distinguish anything in Deuteronomy from a parable, I can see why you never made it into priesthood.

"So you can take your smart-mouth attitude and condescending, judgemental, sarcastic lies and shove them you know where."

Ohhh, tough guy, I'm sooo scared.


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 11:10 p.m.

That so-called "challenge" was from emheilbrun to Indy. Go back and read it. I was responding to the statement, quoted, from the Opinion author. Sorry if you misread it and thought the discussion was limited to parables, but that's your failure, not mine.

Your apology for calling me a liar is accepted...oh, wait. You didn't apologize, did you?

Isn't there something in the bible about lying?


CaptGene: Posted: February 13, 2014 11:38 p.m.

Nice try, but again, you fail. Here's what you wrote:

steve: "CG...honestly? Do we have to dig out biblical teachings on slavery, rape, murder, etc.? Sigh. Okay, here's one: Deuteronomy 22:28-29..."

You were addressing me when you wrote "CG", weren't you? Well, the only conversation I was in had to do with emheilbrun's challenge to Indy Nile to provide an example of the "Bible’s moral parables" that are no longer valid. Go back and read it, I'll wait.

Did you catch it? In my first post I told emheilbrun that Indy Nile wouldn't give him an answer, and when he didn't I said "did I call it or what" in my second post. That's when you said what you said in response to me and you looked like a fool because you didn't offer any parables either. It's quite simple, you stepped in it and you came off looking like a fool. So far, you haven't done anything to improve your appearance.

I'm surprised you didn't pick that up, what with your incredible education and all.


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 11:55 p.m.

I'm surprised that YOU didn't pick up on emheilbrun's recitation of the story of Mary Magdalene (NOT a parable).

Frankly, this is getting stupid. You're attacking me because I didn't respond to someone else's challenge to yet a different person in a way that you think is "proper" or something? And then insult me by calling me a liar, only to be shown that it was you who was lying? And then you follow it up not by apologizing for your erroneous statements (i.e., lies), but by making sarcastic remarks?

Yes, you're quite an example of a "good Christian". I'm sure Jesus would be proud of your behavior on his behalf.


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 12:09 a.m.

I'll even take on emheilbrun's challenge...how about the parables in which slaves are used as examples? Guess Jesus didn't have any problems with slavery, since in none of those is slavery condemned.


CaptGene: Posted: February 13, 2014 12:25 a.m.

Steve: "I'm surprised that YOU didn't pick up on emheilbrun's recitation of the story of Mary Magdalene (NOT a parable)."

Yeah, I saw it, it came several posts AFTER you responded to me. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Yet another attempt at distraction, weak.

You really are a piece of work; when you are shown how you screwed up you can't just admit it, you try to pretend you're above it all with statements like:

steve: "Frankly, this is getting stupid."

I'd say it's getting embarrassing...for you. You are so wrapped up in your ideology you can't admit when you're wrong. Instead of admitting you're wrong, you try and impress us with your un-provable claims about your former religious life and phony claims of victim-hood.

You accused me of lying. BS. I asked you a question that you did not answer, when I called you on it you said: "CG...I already answered it." That was a lie. I never called you a liar, but if I had it would have been %100 accurate.

Why not grow a pair and admit your mistakes, do you have any idea how refreshing that would be?


CaptGene: Posted: February 13, 2014 12:28 a.m.

steve: "...how about the parables in which slaves are used as examples?"

Gee, strong Christian upbringing, four years at an Ivy League, almost a Priest, and you can't come up with a parable? And yet you're mystified as to why anyone would doubt you.

What a loon.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 13, 2014 5:45 a.m.

First, wasn't me that recited the story of Mary Magdalene.

Second, the parable in which Jesus uses slaves as examples is about forgiveness and treating others as we would want to be treated. We may disagree, but I think the moral of that parable remains valid in the modern world.

"So My heavenly Father will also do to you if each of you does not forgive his brother from his heart.”

At least you referenced a parable. Still waiting for Indy to do so.


ricketzz: Posted: February 13, 2014 7:04 a.m.

Bubble Puppies at the end of the day suffer from propaganda induced factual deficiency syndrome, an empty feeling where "confidence" should be, because there is a nagging hunch that things are not as they appear.


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:29 a.m.

I'm not going to provide you with a transcript or resume, CG, because I'm getting more and more convinced that you're some sort of violent, psychotic internet stalker.

emheilbrun...you're right, that was tech. My apologies. And yes, I understand the point of the parables referenced, and that part certainly could be considered valid. I was simply pointing out that it's apparent that Jesus really didn't have any issues with slavery...never once condemned the practice, even in his story-telling. To me, that makes them at least partly invalid in this day and age, in this country.


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:49 a.m.

"I was simply pointing out that it's apparent that Jesus really didn't have any issues with slavery...never once condemned the practice, even in his story-telling. To me, that makes them at least partly invalid in this day and age, in this country."

By that standard, any sage of the ancient and modern world prior to the recent banning of slavery in the West would be considered "partly invalid" if they didn't explicitly state their abhorrence of the practice.


CaptGene: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:50 a.m.

Not that I care, because, frankly, if you actually have the education you claim, you obviously didn't learn anything as evidenced above by your lack of Biblical knowledge. Which would make perfect sense given your lack of reading comprehension skills, also, evidenced above.

I particularly like the way you constantly avoid your error and instead try to make it about me. You are the one that trotted out your education, but when called on it you cry foul! Truly, a hypocrite's hypocrite.


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 9:55 a.m.

"By that standard, any sage of the ancient and modern world prior to the recent banning of slavery in the West would be considered "partly invalid" if they didn't explicitly state their abhorrence of the practice."

No, just those who claim to be the son of God.


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 10:57 a.m.

"No, just those who claim to be the son of God."

An interesting discrimination. How about Allah's Prophet?

Also, wasn't this quote ascribed to Jesus: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." - John 18:36

Critiquing responsibility for a temporal matter seems to be off point.


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 11:10 a.m.

Why is it off base? Shouldn't God (or the Son of God) take responsibility for the entirety of creation?

Jesus sure did a lot of condemning of *other* things...why not slavery?


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 12:28 p.m.

"Why is it off base? Shouldn't God (or the Son of God) take responsibility for the entirety of creation?"

I don't claim to speak for any deity, so you can hardly expect me to be an apologist for any particular one in an expansive theological discussion. If you're really inquisitive, why not ask directly? You appear to have the background to do so.

My thought was, as I stated, that your rational basis for evaluation seemed discriminatory. Mohammad endorsed the practice but your opprobrium appears to be reserved for Christians. Is that also related to your background?

"Jesus sure did a lot of condemning of *other* things...why not slavery?"

Given the premise of the Gospels, perhaps the message was tuned for the audience of that era. If the kingdom that Jesus referenced was not of this world, would slavery in the temporal world be pertinent? Did Jesus have slaves? Did any of the Apostles? I doubt the Romans would have concurred in any event as a matter of political pragmatism.

Slavery in the ancient world was rather different than that practiced in the modern world, i.e. it wasn't race based. Your litmus test strikes me as rather absurd.

Other than attempting to undermine others who have a belief system that differs from your own, what's the purpose of this dialog? It's non-falsifiable, as I've pointed out before.


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 1:19 p.m.

"Mohammad endorsed the practice but your opprobrium appears to be reserved for Christians."

It is? Where did I ever give you such an impression? Because I certainly never said that Mohammad (or any other religious figure) endorsing (or even tolerating) slavery was acceptable. If you mean I didn't mention some other religion, that would, of course, be because we're not talking about other religions.

"Slavery in the ancient world was rather different than that practiced in the modern world, i.e. it wasn't race based."

No, mostly it was based on taking slaves from other regions or cultures. Guess that made it alright, huh?

More to the point...I never said anything about race here. And is non-race-based slavery somehow more "acceptable"? (And please...let's not go down the ridiculous path of trying to defend slavery in the ancient world as being more like having "servants". That's usually the next argument we hear when this comes up. Slavery in the ancient world was equally as brutal and dehumanizing as anything in the U.S. or other western cultures until quite recently).

"what's the purpose of this dialog? "

Simply to counter the idea that there are no teachings in the bible which are bad/evil. And, as a corollary, to point out that Jesus himself seemed perfectly okay with the institution of slavery, never having spoken against it.


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 2:04 p.m.

"If you mean I didn't mention some other religion, that would, of course, be because we're not talking about other religions."

Actually, you were the first to reference Islam in the thread. I responded as well.

"No, mostly it was based on taking slaves from other regions or cultures. Guess that made it alright, huh?"

Obviously not a serious question. Do you think I would assent to something so patently stupid?

"Simply to counter the idea that there are no teachings in the bible which are bad/evil. And, as a corollary, to point out that Jesus himself seemed perfectly okay with the institution of slavery, never having spoken against it."

I don't believe anyone was positing that. Mr. Lunetta's assertion is that there was wisdom to be gleaned and emheilbrun requested Indy provide an example of a parable that was no longer relevant in the modern world. Quibbling aside, the Bible is purportedly a historical record that included human activity. As such, it could hardly be a tome of perfection.

How can you assume Jesus of Nazareth supported slavery if he never expressed a position on that issue in the extant documents? Wouldn't that be a post hoc ergo propter hoc error? Your position is untenable. You don't know nor do I and there's no proofs available.


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 2:35 p.m.

"How can you assume Jesus of Nazareth supported slavery if he never expressed a position on that issue in the extant documents? Wouldn't that be a post hoc ergo propter hoc error? Your position is untenable. You don't know nor do I and there's no proofs available. "

Actually, a good point. It's not a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, though. If anything, it's modus tollens:

If Jesus were against slavery, he would have condemned it.
He didn't condemn it.
Therefore, he was not against slavery.

That's a perfectly valid logical form, by the way. Still, that's only logic, and you're right, it's probably not possible to ascertain with certainty what someone's position on something is if they make no statement about it. The evidence is circumstantial here...Jesus condemned plenty of other behaviors (adultery, thievery, etc. etc. etc.). But not slavery. Interesting.

Still, your position that we cannot know if Jesus supported or opposed slavery because he didn't specifically express a position on it is useful...what *else* did he not express a position on? Can you guess?


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 3:14 p.m.

'"No, mostly it was based on taking slaves from other regions or cultures. Guess that made it alright, huh?"

Obviously not a serious question. Do you think I would assent to something so patently stupid?'

But you ignored the following paragraph, which *was* serious...

"...I never said anything about race here. And is non-race-based slavery somehow more "acceptable"?"


technologist: Posted: February 13, 2014 4:22 p.m.

To my mind, it is a post hoc fallacy because absence of evidence isn't proof, thus your erroneous conclusion:

Jesus never explicitly deplored slavery, therefore he supported the practice.

I ignored the paragraph you mentioned because I agreed with it.

My point was that slavery in the ancient world wasn't race based and you concurred. Did you think I would defend the equally ludicrous proposition that non-raced based slavery is acceptable? You wound me, sir. Again, not serious.

Always a pleasure to cross swords with you, Steve. Anything else on this topic that needs addressing? --edited.


stevehw: Posted: February 13, 2014 5:50 p.m.

Just to clarify...a post hoc fallacy is the fallacious reasoning that because b follows a, a must have caused b. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" literally means "after this, therefore because of it".

Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. And my reasoning via contrapositive requires the assumption of the major premise, which may, in fact, not be true. So yeah, it's a bit of a dodge...logically valid, but as you state, we don't have any statement by the subject.


ricketzz: Posted: February 14, 2014 7:18 a.m.

Ignoring Anthropogenic Global Warming is the opposite of wisdom. Just like squeaky brakes, the sooner we deal with it the less painful it is going to be.

Pain and sacrifice to achieve a noble goal or continued denial; which is more wise?

The mean temperature of the biosphere is rising at least 2 more degrees, more the longer we tally. If the slightly more than 1 degree increase has caused the chaos we see today, will we even recognize the place after 2 more degrees of energy fuels more upset?

When the grandkids ask what you did for the climate you can tell them you ranted about the national debt, which you felt was more important, again for the grandkids.


CaptGene: Posted: February 14, 2014 9:15 a.m.

"Ignoring Anthropogenic Global Warming..."

You need to check your inbox more often, the NEW phrase is "Climate Change", as nobody believes the Globe is warming.


17trillion: Posted: February 14, 2014 10:10 a.m.

Gene,

You need to check your inbox more often. The NEW phrase is "Global Weirding" which pretty much covers any climate phenomenon. "Climate change" is so yesterday.


CaptGene: Posted: February 14, 2014 12:25 p.m.

Thanks 17T, you are correct. I have a filter that sends nonsense like that straight to my spam folder, I promise to check more often!


ricketzz: Posted: February 15, 2014 7:31 a.m.

2010 and 2012 (tentatively) were both hotter than 1998 (el Nino year). 2014 may have an el Nino. Scientists have proven that a lot of heat is going into the oceans and to presume that something has stopped or slowed down is silly. The sun is still burning and our atmosphere is still letting more IR in than is escaping. The equivalent of a hurricane a day (or more) energy is being added to our experiment. Interestingly, the whole bottom half of England has been having a "hurricane" every couple days so far this year. Chaos on the Gulf Stream can have grave global implications.

thermohaline circulator


CaptGene: Posted: February 16, 2014 9:16 a.m.

The slavery described in the "slave" parable sounds more like indentured servitude.


stevehw: Posted: February 16, 2014 9:51 a.m.

And that makes it okay? Or explains why Jesus never once spoke out against *any* form of slavery?

I knew the apologist excuse that "well, slavery then wasn't *really* like slavery latr on" was coming.


technologist: Posted: February 16, 2014 11:24 a.m.

Some fell into that category, i.e. selling oneself into slavery to pay off debt. But I imagine most slaves were inherited, purchased, condemned criminals and conquests of war.

Would someone sell themselves into service in a slave galley, for example? Slavery, no matter how benign, is treating another human as property and is immoral. --edited.


CaptGene: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:08 p.m.

Tech, agreed, obviously, I was simply making an observation. Indentured servitude as described here sounds more like a business arrangement, entered into with the consent of the servant, as opposed to kidnapping people and selling them like you would a bull. One is no better than the other, but they are definitely not the same thing.

steve, how on earth do you stretch what was a simple observation into "that makes it okay"? Get a grip.


technologist: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:39 p.m.

I've used the Parable of the 3 Servants as a teaching tool to my 3 sons, CG. We found it useful to illustrate how they should use the gifts provided by their parents in conjunction with their minds and labor to be assets to their community rather than deficits.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=NLT


stevehw: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:46 p.m.

This will sound argumentative, but it's not meant to be, I swear.

Aren't there *any* other tales, histories, myths, fables, whatever that one could use which *don't* involve slaves, to teach the same thing?

Seriously...a parable which uses slaves (even "indentured servants") as the exemplars seems to me to be sending a very mixed message.


CaptGene: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:20 p.m.

I don 't know if there is (I'm not saying it's the best example, I really don't know if there is a better example). Since we are all slaves to sin but for the grace of God, I think it's a pretty good one.

Does it hold up in the modern world? Sure, it's a parable, how do you describe being a slave to something without using a slave? Sincere question, I can't think of a way to do it.


stevehw: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:54 p.m.

I think that's a different sense of the word "slave". To "be a slave to" something has quite a different meaning than that of "being a slave" in the sense of being owned by someone. Related, to be sure, but not the same.

As usual, I differ with you on the idea that I'm a "slave to sin but for the grace of God", since as you well know, I do not believe that any god exists.


technologist: Posted: February 16, 2014 8:59 p.m.

I consider my role to be that of a faithful steward, Steve. I serve and protect my family before myself. It's my goal to be considered worthy of the gift my forefathers bequeathed me.


technologist: Posted: February 17, 2014 9:09 p.m.

Certainly, there are rewards and I'm truly blessed. Right now, I'm enjoying fine cognac and a cigar under the light of the Moon, Jupiter, Sirius, Rigel and Betelgeuse in my backyard oases. :-)


stevehw: Posted: February 17, 2014 9:11 p.m.

Ah, excellent...I just had a nice Avo Number 2 and a good beer (out of port at the moment) on the patio, myself.


technologist: Posted: February 17, 2014 9:24 p.m.

We have an appreciation of the finer things in life in common, it appears. Cheers!


CaptGene: Posted: February 17, 2014 6:12 a.m.

If the "slave" mentioned in the parable was in fact an indentured servant (I suspect he was, otherwise why the debt?), then he entered into that situation willingly, just as we enter into sin willingly. And in much the same way that some religions feel the only way to forgive your sin (including original sin, which seems a lot like being born a slave to me) is through works that please God, then the debt being paid Is analogous to the debt owed by the slave to the master. The master forgiving the debt then is analogous to Jesus forgiving our sins by divine fiat, if you will.

I suppose a case could be made that the fact that Jesus used slavery to represent something bad in this parable was itself a condemnation of slavery. He could have used any debt owed by anyone, but he chose a slave in particular. That one is a question for religious scholars, which I am not.

To me the analogy holds, even today. So the challenge to Indy to produce a parable that doesn't hold today remains, in my opinion.

As for whether you believe in God or not, why should that matter if we are just out to parse a section of the Bible?


ricketzz: Posted: February 17, 2014 7:07 a.m.

It's weakness when one withdraws when confronted with a grave challenge. Jesus won't help you here. He is on the side of Big Oil.


technologist: Posted: February 17, 2014 10:25 a.m.

"Big Oil" just slides off that serpentine tongue of yours, ricketzz. :-P


ricketzz: Posted: February 19, 2014 6:22 a.m.

As I have previously stated, I spent the biggest part of my on-air career in Houston. Houston, you may not realize, is the center of the petroleum universe. I have partied with people who now run oil companies. One of my best friends from Houston was a student from France who today runs one of the biggest pharma manufacturers in the world. And a refinery in Belgium. The Petro Metro experience showed me amorality in its purest form. Big Oil doesn't care. They like it when there's a refinery explosion because they get to jack up the price of gas. They are sociopaths.

I'm sure you get kudos from your middle management peer group for defending BP and Shell on a news blog; but your grandchildren will spit on your grave for letting the world go to crap.


17trillion: Posted: February 19, 2014 8:27 a.m.

Ricketzz, that computer you're writing on is powered by big oil. So is your car, your house, your food, and just about everything. Thank god for big oil!


ricketzz: Posted: February 20, 2014 5:51 a.m.

I'm pretty sure it is actually powered by a nuke plant in Buckeye, maybe a coal plant up in the Rockies (where Edison now creates their pollution). If you are trying to make me a hypocrite it ain't gonna stick. I got "offsets".

Like most things, oil was seen as liberating, until it turned into bondage.


CaptGene: Posted: February 20, 2014 8:12 a.m.

"If you are trying to make me a hypocrite it ain't gonna stick. I got "offsets""

Posts like this is are why we need "Spew Warnings".


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 1:50 p.m.

The majority of my electrical power is generated by a solar generating facility on my home. I'll bet my "offsets" are bigger than yours, ricketzz. :-D


ricketzz: Posted: February 22, 2014 5:50 a.m.

Unfortunately quaint "green" efforts like personal photovoltaic arrays are 30 years late. We passed "easy" sometime around the fall of the Berlin Wall. The longer we wait the more radical the disruption needed for our survival gets. If we act now we may even preserve some of what we have culturally; the more we delay the more likely permanent martial law and rationing become.

Where is the red line? How about insane food prices? Let's try that for a while. Might as well jack up the fuel tax while we're at it; no food moving on highways anyway, (the locals will keep it).

Cowardice is the one word answer I give if somebody asks me what's wrong with America. We lost the right to be called Americans when we let 19 Wahabists with boxcutters ruin our national psyche. Go shopping. Sacrifice is for wusses. Standing in your socks, holding up your pants in one hand and your "papers" in the other hand, to get on an airplane, is all the proof I need that Bin Laden won.


technologist: Posted: February 22, 2014 8:55 p.m.

Noting your meandering jeremiad, I was on target about my "offsets". Many talk about what others should do, exempting themselves. The remainder are the ones that act. --edited.


CaptGene: Posted: February 23, 2014 9:45 p.m.

Care to predict a date ricketzz? Five years? Twenty-five years?


ricketzz: Posted: March 1, 2014 7:12 a.m.

A date for what? Crops are failing now, even here in the "theoretically" smartest best hope country on God's brown earth. The sea is rising now. Where will the Bangladesh people flee to? We are killing 1,000 plant and animal species a day because they can't adapt quickly enough.

How many times have California and Texas had major droughts at the same time? As I recall we were the refuge from Texas dust. Not this time.


CaptGene: Posted: March 1, 2014 5:42 p.m.

Thanks for that little ray of sunshine! So it's upon us now then? Wow, I didn't even notice. Well, if it's too late, as you claim, there's nothing I can do now. Thanks for the heads up.


ricketzz: Posted: March 2, 2014 7:45 a.m.

I said it's too late to do it painlessly. Inaction now makes more uncertainty later. We worry about our grandchildren being born with paper debt but not their being born in a science fiction hellscape.

"Strange days indeed, Mama" -John Lennon

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigFAQ12.1-1.jpg


CaptGene: Posted: March 2, 2014 8:16 a.m.

You're a funny guy ricketzz. On the one hand you decry excessive government power, but on the other you are more than willing ("this is war") to give that same government unheard of power based on your belief in a myth.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...