| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Shares Climb Nearly 5 Percent | |
|
||
| Time: 18:13 EST/23:13 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. shares climbed nearly 5 percent on Friday after the world's largest software maker reported record revenue in the first quarter that was up 26 percent from the previous year and analysts raised their full-year earnings estimates. Microsoft shares closed at $53.15, up 4.7 percent from Thursday's close on the Nasdaq stock market, matching the high reached in after-hours trade following the results release late Thursday. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 199 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
6:09:44 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 10/20/2002 12:42:36 PM |
|
mhfm - You're saying Carl Sagan was a conman? Wow. You are WAY out of your league man.
Anyway, what does homosexuality have to do with abortion? You seem to like changing the subject when the original topic gets to hard to deal with. Anyway, that link is an excerpt from Carl's book "Billions and Billions". The sources for his information (as well as citations for the proof readers and fact checkers that gave the OK to publish the book) can be found at the end of the book. You can pick up the book here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345379187 At any rate, we can only go by what the two saints wrote (since neither are alive today), so unless you can find quotes that contradict what Sagan said, you have no basis to call Sagan a conman. Sagan contributed more to humanity than you or I ever will, and your disrespect of the man sheds enormous light on your character. |
| #27 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/20/2002 1:29:37 PM |
|
I always find it fascinating when people can profess to be Christians but do not adhere to the word of Christ. In Titus Chapter 1, Paul said "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."
Anyway, I wish to thank mhfm for helping to market the Democratic party, as I can not think of a better way to push votes away from the Republicans than to show your support in the way you do. I also have to chuckle at this whole discussion, and I wonder how bob670, mooresa56, BobSmith and RMD feel now that they've witnessed the type of people the Republican party actively endorses. :) This post was edited by sodablue on Sunday, October 20, 2002 at 13:53. |
| #28 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 3:31:24 PM |
|
Two things I wasn't expecting on this Sunday afternoon - sodablue quoting scripture AND calling me a Republican. Wow. FYI, soda, I'm a voting guy, but not registered to a party. I think the Dems and the Reps both have good things to say, and both have many faults.
RMD, you're quite welcome. mfhm, perhaps you haven't been reading this site for long enough to know this, so let tell you that RMD is quite a fan of Carl Sagan. Talking against Sagan probably holds as much weight with him as talking against the Pope probably does with you. I'm not saying anything about your opinion, just that you should be aware of that. As for rebuking folks - as I see it the one great big huge difference between you or I saying if you do this you go to hell and preaching fire and brimstone at all available opportunities is that Jesus and the Apostles had the Priesthood. They had the authority from God to judge. I don't recall anywhere that a person without such authority boldly declared to anyone else that they were sinning. As for me personally, unless God gives me authority to do so, it isn't my place to judge others. I don't know their hearts, their intentions, their understandings. I don't even fully understand the laws and when there might be exceptions to it. For me, I look at the Sermon on the Mount and understand that I need to be the best person I can be and let others learn from that. I need to take the beam out of my own eye before I take the speck out of another's eye. I need to be meek and turn the other cheek. You are welcome to take my comments as you like. Feel free to think my conscience is warped, you wouldn't be the first. RMD thinks my logic is warped because I believe in God. You believing that I'm weak or that my sense of right and wrong is warped because I'm trying to be meek and humble is your choice. Whatever you think of me, I'd hope you consider this, do you think that your preaching of eternal damnation is going to convince someone that doesn't even believe in God to begin with that they should repent? It seems to me that they way to preach would go along these lines: Learn the truth yourself. Repent and make yourself pure before God via the atonement of Christ. Live a righteous life, in other words be an example of righteousness. If you teach, teach about the love of God, the love of Jesus, and their desire for us to be happy. Then explain that the way to be happy is by obeying the commandments, repenting, etc. It seems to me that this is the best way to teach. It kind of follows two old sayings - Practice what you preach AND you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. This post was edited by BobSmith on Sunday, October 20, 2002 at 15:34. |
| #29 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 4:50:34 PM |
|
In your post #33 you said:
RMD: 1% late term abortions out of 3 million is still 30000 people !!! So if you vote for democrats you are guilty of murdering at least 30000 people. And yes, i do believe that in God's eyes those who vote for those murders are just as guilty. There is absolutely no difference. AS a matter af fact I went to Church yesterday and the priest told us the same thing. This is the last warning for all democrats voters. You will pay dearly for this, I can guarantee you !! ________________ It certainly sounds to me that you are judging. Not, you may pay for this. Not, you need to repent. Not call for the mercy of God and the grace of Christ. No, you say, "You are guilty...You will pay dearly... !!" That's judgement, brother. |
| #30 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 4:57:18 PM |
|
Forgot to add, I'm not familiar with the Sagan issue you are fighting with RMD. I will say this, simply because neither you nor RMD have seen the sources for Sagan's allegations doesn't mean that Sagan lied. It doesn't mean he didn't lie. It means that there needs to be more research on the matter to determine whether or not Augustine and Aquinas said or didn't say what Sagan claims they said.
Also, when you call Sagan a conman, you are judging. Granted you are passing sentence, but you have judged him a liar. It would be interesting what your position would be if it could be shown that Augustine and Acquinas really did say what Sagan claims. I have disagreements with Sagan's opinions and don't know one way or they other of his claims about Augustine and Aquinas, but I'll readily admit that he was a very smart man, very well read, and very knowledgable. |
| #31 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 6:10:09 PM |
|
mhfm, what does 'mfhm' mean?
Since I don't have Billions and Billions, I can't check the footnotes (perhaps RMD can help us out with this one), but I'm searching to validate Sagan's claims about Augustine and Aquinas. I hope you go to the trouble of reading these links, since it took quite a bit of searching to find them. Also, I do not agree with abortion. I think it is wrong whether or not the fetus is a fetus or an unborn child. Further, I am not Catholic and do not claim that the words of Augustine or Aquinas are true. I know you are a Catholic and hold that view, so I've done this research for your sake. I've also researched it for the sake of the name of Carl Sagan. Whether or not I agree with man is no reason to defame him as you have done. An honest man has a right to his good name without regard to his opinions. From http://www.linacre.org/embryo.html I've found a porported quotation of Augustine (you'll find it near the bottom of the page): "If what is brought forth is unformed but at this stage some sort of living, shapeless thing, then the law of homicide would not apply, for it could not be said that there was a living soul in that body, for it lacks all sense, if it be such as is not yet formed and therefore not yet endowed with its senses". I'm looking for a source for that quote, but I suspect that Sagan wasn't making things up. Also, generally most articles I've seen have said that Aquinas said similarly. Ah, just found another Aquinas reference. I can't get an exact quote from him, but the numerous folks claiming that he said this could be construed as support for Sagan's claim. http://www.linacre.org/atheol.html (look under "The Christian Tradition" the first paragraph: "Furthermore, St Thomas Aquinas, one of the most authoritative theologians of the Middle Ages, explicitly held that the human embryo did not possess a spiritual soul and was not a human being (homo) until forty days in the case of males or ninety in the case of females" Supposedly this is verified in Commentary on the Sentences book IV, d. 31, but I don't have the text, so I can't verify it myself. It seems that the Aquinas statements are contained in Summa theologiae, Question 76. To read for yourself (sorry it is WAY to lengthy to quote) see http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ for the full text or http://www.gocart.org/summa.html to search it. The second site will provide links to the full text on the first site. Presupposing that the site above has a correctly translation of Summa Theologiae, it seems that Sagan was correct on both counts. |
| #32 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 6:14:55 PM |
|
Reply to mhfm (#65)
Whether they are ignorant or not, you judged them. For reference, when you make an accusation and state it as fact, I call that judgement. When you say as a result of this fact, a particular thing will happen to you, I call that sentencing. In your "overreact[ion]", I'd say you did both. I state this as my opinion. In your overreaction, you seem to judge them again. If you consider your overreaction judgement AND you see judgement as something that is for God to decide THEN it follows that you need to ask their forgiveness for your overreactions. Again, just my opinion. |
| #33 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 6:25:41 PM |
|
mhfm, a reasonable assumption to draw when looking at my posts is that I'm attacking you. I hope you don't feel that way, since that isn't my intention. I'm attacking the ideas, which, as I understand it, you put forth as the word of God.
I have stated that I'll defend the rights of a person to have an abortion so long as they have that right in this country. I'll also defend the name of a defenseless man (only because he dead) who, as it turns out, was falsely accused. I'll also defend the right of a person to his opinions and to worship (or not worship) God according to his own conscience. You have every right to be a Catholic, and I hope you are the best Catholic you can be. When someone seems to want to interfere with my rights to have my opinions and worship according to my conscience OR to interfere with others rights to have their opinions and worship according to their consciences, that makes me very defensive. In short and to clarify, I'm not attacking you, but stating (in a rather verbose manner) that I disagree with you. |
| #34 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 6:41:33 PM |
| It seems that the popes have had issues with abortion over the ages. Check out http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm |
| #35 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 10/20/2002 7:24:59 PM |
|
BobSmith - alas, my grandmother is currently borrowing my copy of "Billions and Billions". Luckily she lives not too far away, so I can probably pick it up when I see her next weekend. (I would call her and ask her to find the citation, but that would take at least an hour of explaining why I needed it... trust me... eheh)
I think you did an excellent job of finding supporting evidence for Sagan's statements anyway. I appreciate this a great deal. I especially liked the http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm link. Very informative. I'm toying with the idea of compiling the various links you've found, in addition to Sagan's essay, into one large treaties on abortion and religion. If or when I do, I will be sure to post a link. Anyway, mhfm, would you care to recant your claim that Sagan is a liar and a conman? Sagan had many flaws (as we all do), but being a liar was not one of them. |
| #36 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 10/20/2002 7:33:45 PM |
|
mhfm: "Also, I challenge any Democrat reading this to give ONE good reason why a person should vote for Democrats, please I want to know it."
Well, I'm not a Democrat, but here are a few reasons that I would consider: 1.) Democrats tend to be more concerned with environmental issues than Republicans. 2.) Democrats tend to be more concerned with civil liberties than Republicans. 3.) Democrats tend to be more concerned with the lower and middle classes than Republicans. 4.) Democrats tend to be more 'liberal' with science funding than Republicans. 5.) Democrats tend to be a more diverse group, both economically and ethnicaly, than Republicans. 6.) Democrats are just plain less scary than Republicans. There are more, but that's a start. #6 is based mostly off what I see in the media, and from books like "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock. Brock was a right-wing hitman for many years, but he was finally turned on by the Right, and decided to tell the whole story. How much it is true, I have no idea... but if anything, it is some pretty scary reading. |
| #37 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/20/2002 8:13:58 PM |
|
BobSmith - I didn't really call you a Republican, did I? I certainly apologize if you thought I did because I didn't mean to insult anybody like that. :) I don't know why it is odd I quote scripture, though. One of the problems I see with Christianity(well Islam as well as others) is that most who profess to be followers are not as they don't abide by the teachings. Christ teaches that religion is a private thing, and I feel anybody who walks around proclaiming themself a Christian all the time is violating the teachings.
bob670 - "And it's not like the democrats have something all that compelling to offer, having no standards is just as bad as having standards like mfhm." Sigh. You have more in common with mhfm than you care to realize. Just because someone's values are different from your own does not mean that they lack values. Learn how to listen to others than assuming you are right all the time, you might be surprised at what you hear. |
| #38 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 8:21:59 PM |
|
Oops! I didn't intend to say that because of your character, I didn't think you could be a scripture knowing guy. I meant that in the year I've been coming to this site, I don't think I've ever even heard you mention God. Quoting scripture rather caught me off gaurd.
As for religion being a private thing - I think you are very correct. "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" James 2:18. I think James agrees with you too. As for the Republican thing, I've been accused of it so many times, I guess I just expect it. Then I defend some civil rights and I'm called a Democrat. Then I endorse pure socialism and they call me a Communist. I haven't found a party that I like yet. |
| #39 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/20/2002 8:35:48 PM |
|
BTW, my one comment on abortion.
Men have historically been very jealous of the ability of women to give birth. It's sort of an odd thing, but this jealousy in many ways has driven men's desire to create life artificially. From the earliest forms of alchemy with the goal of building of a golem of clay, on through the creation of robots of a human form. The political discussion of abortion follows a similar trend. That is, it's primarily motivated by a type of jealousy or hatred of women. I say this because if you look at those who go around preaching against it, you'll notice a trend... About 90% of them are men. Now why should men care so much? At no points in their life will they ever be faced with making a choice about a pregnancy because they are incapable of becoming pregnant. Again, it's this self-loathing and jealousy that drives them, in some cases the loathing is so strong that they attack people at clinics, sometimes going so far as to kill people with guns or bombs. This is not to say that there are not legitimate arguments in this realm. There is reasonable discourse to be had here, and you'll find that most people do not like abortions. However, intelligent people also recognize that the alternative is worse. The real issues are ones of unwanted pregnancy, and the only way to prevent that is to have intelligent discourse on preventative measures... encouraging abstinence or at least providing easy access to birth control devices. Removing the stigmas towards sex would likely go a long way. Actually I've been sort of impressed at how the stigmas towards sex have been dissolving. There was a recent little incident with the Miss America contest. Apparently Miss America wanted to preach about abstinence, and the pagent was very much against that. Not because the pagent wants to encourage promiscuity, but rather the topic of sex is strickly taboo. Miss America doesn't have sex organs, as far as they are concerned. Anyway this desire to not talk about sex apparently upset the Family Values people, so that's good in a way. Now they realize that sex isn't going to disappear and we better start talking about it and what it means to our relationships. Then I see Jenna Jameson and Tera Patrick interviewed on Fox News, and Ron Jeremy all over in mainstream movies and I am really in shock. :-) |
| #40 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/20/2002 9:07:18 PM |
|
BobSmith - I hear ya. I don't much quote scripture, but I keep a handful of quotes handy. :)
I do have to agree about political parties. I do tend to be more of a Democrat as the whole party is more open and receptive to different ideas. That is, voices are heard and listened to and then balanced against the present needs. Unfortunately I don't think the present party leadership quite gets this and thus they have a hard time communicating the platform. President Clinton got it, which was why he was so successful. Although it did piss off Nader, who went on his own in 2000. We have a local candidate running for governor here on the Independent party ticket. His name is Tim Penny. He's kind of an interesting guy, and basically is against special interests. He points out that we have real issues that need real solutions, and the special interests should have some say in the debate but they should not be allowed to control the debate. I hope he wins, as it may signal a change in national politics. Unfortunately the special interests are very much against him on both sides(not surprising I suppose). I find that encouraging. One of the problems that the United States has is that we swing so wildly from one extreme to another, and as a result we solve nothing because the real solution is in the middle. People like mfhm like to lament about taxes, and claim that Europe is communist because they have higher taxes. But actually if you look into it, the tax rates in Europe are not much different than in the United States. We just hide ours. Even worse, our use of money is incredibly inefficient. If you want to see the real inefficiencies go look at what the US spends on health care. Then compare this against the health statistics. You'll find in the nations in the G8 which have nationalized health care they spend less money and get more for it.(except for Russia) But instead of discussing why we have this inefficiency and addressing that, the debate turns into a ridiculous discussion accusing one another of being communists. |
| #41 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/20/2002 9:09:45 PM |
| mhfm - Why are you still here? Nobody is going to listen to you because you are neither rational or reasonable. |
| #42 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 9:32:35 PM |
|
mhfm, I put a healthy amount of time into my posts explaining things to you, then you respond with some little explanation - little interest, little contrition, little gratitude.
Unbelievable. |
| #43 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 10:30:40 PM |
|
For someone you has talked of hell and great punishment as much as you have, it seems you should have done some great apoligizing to those you have offended. A false accusation is a serious thing. Saying, "I take it back" is a start, but a sincere apology would be a healthy addition. Again that's my opinion. If I were RMD, in terms of brotherhood between you, it seems that you have done almost nothing to restore or foster a new sense of brotherhood between you.
As for what other Catholic saints have said about abortion, I'm really not interested. My point is this: you say abortion of any type or kind at any time is murder. The history of the Catholic Church says that it is a not fully decided issue. From what I've read, they all call it a grave sin, but there are many even Popes, who don't consider certain abortions murder. Before you claim judge and condemn someone it seems that you should understand the laws whereby you judge and condemn them. Not knowing your doctrine (laws) screems to me that you do not know whereof you speak. It is my opinion that Jesus command us "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1) is that we so often do not know what we are talking about. Let's look at verse 2. "For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged" IF you take literally AND you have judged incorrectly the character or at the very least the integrity of Carl Sagan THEN you should expect to be judged in a similar manner. Were I to make accusations as it seems to me that you do in so bold a manner, I'd say - I hope for your sake that God isn't the one that judges you without doing research, or you might find yourself in hell with those you have falsely accused. |
| #44 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 10:34:27 PM |
|
I should expand on the "not really interested" statement, which I made. I am not a Catholic, so whatever the Catholics have said about that issue are irrelevant to me in my religious beliefs. Furthermore, I was offering evidence of your false accusations, judgement, and condemnation against Carl Sagan. I was NOT arguing about abortion.
If you want to talk about religion, then we should find a forum to do that. ActiveChristianity would be a better starting place than ActiveWin. |
| #45 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/20/2002 10:44:54 PM |
|
BTW, has anybody else noticed that this thread has just resulted in BobSmith surpassing my post count!?
ARRRGGGHHH!!!! mhfm - [crickets chirping] |
| #46 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 10:56:51 PM |
|
You're a little bit late sodablue. I passed you at 10/18/2002 3:13:47 AM. My goal was to be the first one to 2500 posts, which I reached at 10/18/2002 3:21:31 AM. That last day I had to do 190 posts, but I still made it.
Sorry, bro. ; - ) |
| #47 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 11:00:45 PM |
|
Oh, together with n4cer, there are two other records I claim. The longest running thread - 30 days. The longest thread - 737 posts. This post was edited by BobSmith on Sunday, October 20, 2002 at 23:02. |
| #48 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 11:27:13 PM |
|
"Regarding Carl Sagan: To me somebody who lies is a conman. Sagan claims that St. Augustina and St. Thomas Aquinas didn't think abortion was a sin. Now this to me is an unbelievable lie."
Other than saying you that you think Carl Sagan is a liar or a conman, I don't know how to understand this. You stated your opinion. Your opinion was based on your judgement. Your judgement was that Carl Sagan is a liar and a conman. Is there some other way to interpret this? Is it really so hard to say "Sorry, I was wrong. Please forgive me." ? Perhaps I'm wrong, and please forgive me if I am, but can't help but look and see that you have offended your brother, Carl Sagan, and an admirer of Carl Sagan, RMD. Further, they are both my brothers, so you have by extension offended me. I hope all of you here, but specifically RMD in this case, will forgive the statements of mhfm. He, like me, doesn't speak for Christianity. He speaks as a man. It is my opinion (or judgement if you will) that he speaks as a proud man at that. |
| #49 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 11:29:19 PM |
| Regarding abortion - that's very curious. Since I'm very tired of looking up Catholic doctrine, would you give me a link to the currently held position on abortion. The question I want to know is does the Catholic Church currently consider it murder in all cases. |
| #50 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/20/2002 11:34:28 PM |
| Forgiven. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 199 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
6:09:44 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
