Eric D

Hey Orange Peel, you have a deadline on getting that SPL meter. I read elsewhere that you have a sub on order. You need the SPL meter because you just can't set the volumes to match your regular speakers using just your ear. Bass just doesn't sound the same as the full-range noise. But I guarantee you'll like the result. Enjoy, Eric

I was just checking this and the "other" thread before I leave on vacation and thought quote might be of interest. Not aimed at anyone in specific - just for consideration in the general discussion. "Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excess wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best." -- Robert Heinlein Have a good weekend, Eric

Being from the original Scooby Doo generation, I gotta admit it has a certain ring.... But seriously, as I've been thinking about this, maybe the process we're going through is more important than the outcome. I think of the Pledge as something we're introduced to in school when we are to young to really understand it. As we get older, first we learn what each part means, then we delve into how it is implemented - the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our laws. By the time we get to be old enough to vote (and hardened in our ways), we debate how and if to change it. The best thing I can hope for this current "crisis" is that we provide our children a demonstration of how our country internally resolves an emotional subject. Rather than killing each other, we debate - hopefully civilized - and even if it gets heated , we stay within limits and use the constitutionally defined methods to resolve our differences. That's why I think one and all who have participated in this debate probably voice the pledge (OK, whichever version) with obvious sincerity - not just a monotone recitation of words. As such, I'm definitely... Dam*-glad-to-meet-ya, Eric

Forgot two other things. I got to the end of a thought and sent it off willy-nilly. First, CLS72: Im glad you love people more than your feelings or my reputation. That we share in common. It does give me hope. Oops, one request: please define people. Second, Mallett: Thanks for your contributions to this conversation. You've given me some reading assignments. I didn't want to let a posting go by without saying thanks. Eric

I stopped posting once the conversation got away from the original Pledge discussion and onto topics that are surely so personal that we would rapidly devolve into name calling, but I can't resist this no matter the personal cost (which I expect to be great because my bible-quoting days are far behind). I just want to ask that you contemplate the meaning of the passage, "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except by me." Have you considered that the first part of that sentence is an equality? And that the second could therefore be stated as "no man comes to the Father except by the way, the truth, and the life."? But maybe I miss the fact that Jesus was a literalist - never given to parable. <tongue firmly in cheek> To paraphrase my question, might it not important that oneshout that "you do all in his name!" (even if it is effectively nothing), but that it may be more important that one live "the way, the truth, and the life?" Then again, I've also never been fond of the saying "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission." IMHO, some people see Jesus' forgiveness of everything as an excuse to do whatever they want, but that it's OK because they are Christian and he will forgive them. Re "All I ever hear about is how bad America has become (crime, aids, etc.) I think to myself,"What has changed?" I guess I'm not always proud of everything my country has done in the past - slave were owned by good Christians, "heathens" were oppressed in the name of manifest destiny. And I think you're looking at some of the personal behaviour through rose-colored glasses as well - there was plenty of crime as well. But it's meaningless for me to live in the past. I can only affect the now, and hope that our country can live in the most Christian manner (not to say declaratively "Christian!") possible. (note I say "possible" I still have a problem with the good old USA "turning the other cheek" to terrorism. And some of my other preferred policies can be tough love. Also, don't lump me in with the "bleeding-heart" liberals) But ahh, I guess aids is a plague to strike down the ungodly. When we were more godly we had smallpox, polio, etc. But aids being the current "penalty" of the ungodly, and that probably being a few people's opinion of us Californians, I'm sure there are a few prayers along that line being said. Taking it on the chin, Eric This message has been edited by Eric D on 07-12-2002 at 04:52 PM

Alan - but do you have Klipsch speakers? That would make you a member of the Horn party. (no reference to HornED intended). Come to think of it, none of the founding fathers had Klipsch speakers - Why should we trust them at all? I understand a bit of your frustration. There's been quite a bit of off-topic conversation, history lessons, etc. here. I've tried to digest it only to the extent that it illuminates the discourse on the subject at hand. The rest, I've had to let drop on the ground or else I would have gone running off stark-ravers. There have been a few lines I've wanted to ask about gently and some that I've wanted to absolutely scream at the stop of my lungs, "NOOOO!!!!" about, but they haven't been germaine to the topic (and it would not have been productive). I don't have time to be lured into shouting matches or to go off on tangents. I, for one, am quite interested in the view on this issue by someone who proudly proclaims themselves a liberal. I just don't use either word for myself because it depends upon the topic too much for me. And I don't know how I can be called a moderate either because there are some things where I may be to the left of you, and somethings where I may be to the right of those arguing against the court decision here. Maybe I'm an Oscillist? Anyway, I do see people signing off of this. I'll only follow it as long as it continues to bring up meaningful new discussion. I'm glad it didn't end too soon to get the early comments from Roadhawg or the later comments from Larry. But this being a Klipsch forum, get with the program. We aren't laid-back - we are direct and dynamic! If you have another note to add to this cacophany, please play on. And finally, maybe in the spirit of the Horn party, a better curse to end your message with might be, "Ah, to BOSE with it!" Have a good night all, Eric Much of the above is purely

Quoth HornEd: "every once in a while my little finger becomes overzealous... and communication suffers." Hmmm, usually it's another overzealous finger that causes communication to suffer. But more seriously, this later statement "Holy Wars" are among the most deadly that can be fought in this or any other time. " is the one I really think that Americans, even if we didn't grasp it before when terrorism was something that happening to other people, should *surely* get now. . I've got all kinds of ideals, but we've all learned about tempering them with realism. An understanding of human nature was indeed important to the writing of our constitution. I also enjoyed and appreciated Larry's post mightely, but it sure opens another can of worms. Is there a way to propagate the ideals of capitalism without some of the growing pains such as our early manifest destiny misdeeds (have those ended yet?), monopolistic robber barons, profit-making legislators, or fraudulant corporate accounters. OK, we're obviously still in infancy - well maybe in our teens - grown to our powers but not in charge of our hormones (apologies to some of the impetuous youth about on the thread who provide different forms of motive force). Would that our constitution gave us such insightful and powerful limiters for the area of economy. And America could sure do with a basic fix for the selling of legislation. As long as it's left up to specific law-making, it's sure to be end-run. IMHO, we need a serious basic change that can pass through Occam's Razor unbloodied (Side note: those of you considering telling me to leave any Arabic philosophies out of this discussion, it's time to do a little reading. ) Anyway, can this group of great thinkers come up with a fix? If it can, maybe the Internet can retire Salon.com. So I'll continue to give thanks for the constraints that prevent my Government practicing my or any other religion, paradoxical though it sounds. Eric (who has never posted one byte on the aforementioned den of over-clever self-labelled high-thinkers - and is doing a weak job of imitating such). This message has been edited by Eric D on 07-01-2002 at 04:37 PM

Now, Now. This is America - we have due process. I say "give him a fair trial, followed by a first-class hanging!" Eric (who just watched Silverado over the weekend!)

Good weekend - sorry I wasn't around. Hope in my hurry through catching-up and through memory lapses that I haven't misread or misinterpreted something - feel free to correct. Anyway, here were a couple of my random weekend thoughts: A point argued originally in this thread and by several letters to the editors over the weekend stated that removing "under God" favors atheism over other religions. I don't consider atheism a religion in the sense of the word, rather an absence therof. But based on our discussions last week it makes sense to me that it should be treated as such legally. I always felt at a gut level that the original/newly-proposed wording was neutral. The continued use of that argument over the weekend got me to thinking, and I would have to believe that it would take words such as "without a God" to *favor* atheism. I chose to say "original/newly-proposed" because, while I can be conservative in my approach to change (suspect it!), I believe there are definitely changes always to be made. Our constitution was a product of a period in time, and times change. So just because the two words weren't in the Pledge originally, I don't have a problem with it because they are new, and I won't ever argue that reason. BTW, I don't think the horny-one-with-the-right-initials is arguing to change thm back for that reason either - just rebutting those who state that the court is trying to change the "original" content. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to admit to being against putting "In God we trust" on money as well. But as I looked at deang's list of 6/30, I believe keeping the rest of them, as they are either treating with the fact that an individuals are religious; or in the case of the statues in government buildings, paying tribute and recogition to the source of our laws. Now can we get the drapes taken off the greek ladies? (BTW, has MaxG heard about that?) In particular, I *wish* my public school education had included a comparative religion course. I wish I knew more about Judaism, Islam, and other religions - not because I believe it might convert me, but so I can be respectful, avoid unintentional slights, find common ground, etc. OK, I have to admit that one point I reflected on over the weekend was the American-historical use of the bible to teach reading. I would have thought it was both because of the religion-of-choice of those teaching and being taught as well as the availability of the document. But on the whole, I was glad to have the readers I was taught with, rather than trying to use "See Matthew pray. Pray, Matthew, pray." But to go back to one last thing I missed over the weekend - the congrats for participation and entreties for continued critical thinking. FH2, and k-boy - please keep up that thinking and discussion. And remember to vote your Christian-or-whatever-source consciences. On those topics you think important, launch into meaningful debate with your friends in hopes of leveraging your point of view with a few more votes. Or if you're sufficiently passionate about something, work for or against it politically. BTW, I sure hate that word - "politically." I twinge every time I say it. Hmmm, maybe I need to get more active about political reform? Can I suggest that you do work for or against something statesmen-like? Eric P.S. to HornED: Thanks for your paragraph last evening: Besides the first amendment and "...with liberty and justice for all" ending to the Pledge, that succinctly put forward the best other argument I've heard for changing/restoring the words. I may have to change your name to the Great-HornED-Owl or just visualize you as "Owl" from Winnie the Pooh hereafter. Anyway, I merrily plagerize ("let no one else's work evade your eyes!" ) it here so people may consider the argument by itself: "I believe that a return to a Pledge and Motto that conforms legally to the First Amendment would strengthen our country at a time when religious fervor is again dividing the world. No one doubts America's strong Christian Heritage... but, today, the Muslim faith is the world's fastest growing religion... and the official National Motto that does not conform to the Constitution is another "proof" that terrorist/opportunists like Osama, Saddam, et al have used to gain support and blow up Americans. -HornED (editied 'gain to correct quoted material) This message has been edited by Eric D on 07-01-2002 at 02:14 PM

Oh yeah, and I forgot No relation to the Horned one, but I did notice a while back that if you use my initials, I'm "ED" without the "Horn". Being hornless is not something I want to be on a Klipsch website. Well, really gotta run now. I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date! (he heads for the rabbit hole...) toodles, Eric

I was not trying to put words in your mouth. You said earlier, "Leaving 2 words in a traditional saying does not make this a DeFacto Christian Nation ..." I extracted (this being the stretch), that you didn't want this to be a de facto Christian Nation. If that induction was incorrect, the rest of this is moot. But taking my assumption as fact, I asked the question, how would you best communicate that we are a country based on christian values but not a defacto Christian nation, to the rest of the world, and to our citizens? Eric

FH2: I believe from your words (Leaving 2 words in a traditional saying does not make this a DeFacto Christian Nation,) that you dont want a de facto Christian nation. My question to you is, how do we best communicate that to the world as well as to all our citizens? Roadhawg and deang. Thanks for your considered and defended points Roadhawg - one aside: I do wear leather (and just dont think I happen to have any fur outside of wool car seats) but I would still defend animal rights, but Im not a PETA member. Personal example: I dont eat veal unless I absolutely know the source wasnt via the usual pen-raised route. I have debated with a PETA member, saying that if I was visiting a rancher and he pointed out a calf frolicking across the pasture and said it was dinner that night, Id truly savor the meal. But back on topic. Roadhawg said, I believe that the existence of a loving, forgiving God who is actively involved in the daily affairs of man is an absolute. I further believe that the accomplishments of this nation descend directly from our foundations upon Christian principles. I agree with that, both as the accomplishments have been good and bad. I feel that our countrys greatest moments have come when we have applied Love thy neighbor as thyself, and the worst have come when weve let Christianity make us feel superior to someone else. (I dont mean to bring scripture into the discussion I mean it only as discussion of the precept.) Amen. A much more important point than the two words that started the discussion. But re, I don't believe we have to deny our origins to keep someone else from feeling uncomfortable, I would suggest that we arent just trying to be a country for the majority of Americans. The purpose of the majority is as the way we try to make difficult decisions through our vote. And sometimes the designers set the bar even higher so that it becomes even more difficult to affect us as individuals. As such, I hope we try to be inclusive of minority religions why should we cause them to be uncomfortable in a vow of fealty to our shared country. deang said, We have correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush, also a signer of the Declaration of Independence, what his concerns were. It is clear from this letter that the specific verbiage utilized in the 1st amendment was to prevent the establishment of a government sponsored, or back religion -- more specifically, the government backing of one particular Christian denomination over another. I agree, but I have to ask why the words werent Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of one particular Christian denomination or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. His letter does illuminate the intent, and speaks to the specific problem; but they seemed to choose to write the more general case when they could have been more specific if they wanted. And anyway deang, you said that this is your interpretation of the first amendment is 2) Congress can make no law showing favoritism over one religion over another. We seem to be in agreement since you didnt insert denomination there. But Im not trying to put words in your mouth I suspect from your later posting that it might be be your actual interpretation. I got a bit lost in the later set of quotations. I guess to my thinking, a quotations usefulness lies in stating more succinctly some thought we have been unable to quite spit out correctly, rather than by weight of numbers. Taking them in sum, it looked to me like you were trying to equate virtuousness with Christianity. So I guess the next question you should essay should be, Is it more or less virtuous to be protestant or catholic? Were probably rapidly approaching a parting of the ways. Thank you for the meat youve given me to chew upon. I know I will consider your words. I do think we agree on using our respective religious values to organize and to run the government. I know that if I was ever saddled with the weighty responsibility of governing, Id have sores on my knees as well, as well I would want the thoughts, prayers, and understanding of those I was trying to represent. k-boy I always want to respond to you since this is your thread. Re: These are bases that we use. We cannot live in a totally universal and unoffensive world, or there would be nothing. We need to have standards, and religion just happens to be the case for some of them. I have tried to espouse fervently the use of religion as the basis for standards, and the basis for law. Im just against making one religion the standard of the country, even if it is my own. And finally, BadBob: Thanks for posting and not running up the view-to-response ratio! You all have a good weekend, Eric (just running around the outside of this melee throwing a few which appear to be missing but it makes me happy)

FH2: The incisiveness of your jabs says to me that you have a quick and active mind. So I patiently add bits of information or explain reasoning in the hope that a few seeds may land and over grow time (next year, 10, 20, 30, ... years from now) in what appears to be very fertile ground. (Im sure that someone will associate PWKs yellow button with your choice of soil conditioner, but I meant that sincerely). Audio Flynn: Let us hope and pray for more statesmen and less politicians. In reply to your statement, I do not trust people who believe in no deities, multiple deities, or that their deity tells them my rights are lesser because you do not believe in their deity, I say feel free not to trust them. But might you consider that your rights become lesser if you make their rights lesser. And I guess that my version of your statement would be I would rather associate with a moral person who happens to be an Atheist than an amoral person who labels themselves a Christian. I make that statement guardedly because I do NOT intend it to refer to anyone posting here who has identified themselves as Christian. As example, replace amoral with pedophile, and I think you-all will get my gist. kboy: Re, The Democrats want to think for us, I want to think for myself. I agree that there are Democrats that feel that way, but I also refer back to my earlier notes re what I feel is the co-opting of conservatism by those who want to force their opinions down the throats of others. But stop and consider which side of this argument is the one trying to force a thought down someones throat (maybe just not yours this time). deang: I do think of our founders, what they said, they meant. I, for one, wholeheartedly want our law and institutions to be based on and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. But I dont want them to *be* our law and institutions, nor did the early Supreme Court select those words. Re the sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. Im sure well end up disagreeing on this part, but I dont read that as saying we will have Christian churches only or that they will control the others. Unfortunately, I cant say that Im not interpreting the words (what I THINK they meant) as I cant ask them to clarify it, But neither can you. We are both interpreting. And finally, we look to what words they said (and meant?!?) in the first amendment. Of all their writings, these are the ones they selected to control the form of our government. I think Ive stated before an agreement that religion and Christianity have place in government. I hope that our statesmen (let us hope for statesmen) would inform their decisions based on their religion, and believe in invocations prior to working on legislation. The sticky problem is how to ensure all religions have a place in Government. But back to the Pledge: I agree that under God is not for God or some other more strongly worded requirement. I just want to make an active step to be inclusive of my Muslim, Buddhist, Sufi, Hindi, Wiccan, Atheist, etc, brothers and sisters, as long as they are moral people. Its that damn liberty and justice for all at the end, ya know. Anyway, Ive got other problems with the phrasing anyway. Pledging allegiance to a flag seems a little bit like idolatry. Anyone think they would consider a complete rewrite? I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the values for which it stands. One country, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And I freely add, So help me God! Eric This message has been edited by Eric D on 06-28-2002 at 12:20 PM

I've been interested in the informative side of this discussion, even to the presentation of each individual's point of view. I'll try to stick with it a little longer, but I do feel that it has devolved somewhat into name calling, and that certain positions have not been defended with more with "because!" than with explanation. My basic philosophy towards the law is that "I don't want the Government making any law that protects me from myself." I kinda feel that's pretty conservative. And as I stated in my discussion of the Golden Rule, if I want that for myself, I extend the same to others. I can't any longer remember the source of that statement in the last paragraph (and another sentence that goes with it to the effect of the purpose of law is to protect me from other a**holes), but when I tried to look it up, I ran into the a quote I'll put at the end of this message that looked pretty on point. I marvel at how conservatism has been coopted by those who would use government activism to control others or force their religious point of view on others. I might be totally in religious agreement with our most vociferous posters, but because I differ on whether or not to extend courtesy to another religion or to an athiest who might very well be more moral than some scandalous televangelists, I'm the "L" word. Just as they attempt to stamp the L word on a judge who attempts limit government activism. It may be an action from 1954, but it is still an action by the government to forward a specific point of view outside of it's purpose as defined in the constitution. I take being labelled as L (or "C" for that matter) in stride - I prefer to be thoughtful in my philosophy, consistent in my reasoning, and open to further information that may either cause me to change my point of view on a narrow topic or even possibly bring an epiphany that could cause me to revisit whole ranges of my beliefs about topics. I can sound frightenly "C" about such topics as "English as a Second Language," welfare, or immigration; and I've not given to foreign charities since 1973 because I perceived it as an investment in pain without a long-term plan to deal with the results. But ask me, and I'll always try to discuss the why or my points of view, try to learn more, and am open to consider changing my pov. And I'll respect your abilities to listen and perhaps learn. Let's see - anarchist? I think the quote that most of you can relate to would be JFKs "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." I just remember somewhere long ago from a class on Organization theory something like any organization is just the sum of what people put into it. A version of that has always stuck with me. I feel the true believers in our country look to give TO it, not to take FROM it. In this application, to me it means that we need to sacrifice some of our personal preferences to the JOB of building an inclusive society - but one that allows me to practice my preferences (and can't if it doesn't allow the other schmo to do the same). I think I'g gonna head home from my job with a Government contractor and fire up the Klipsch speakers. Maybe I'll pull out the ole' uniform and look at my dirty Presidential Unit Citation pennant that I'll never send to the cleaners, just to remind me of how I think we build a good country. "Anarchist" - it is to laugh... Oh yeah, here's the quote: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D. Brandeis 'Nuff of this. As usually happens in these discussions (or today's middle east developments in the news), a little of my hope for our world to grow in kindness has died today, and besides, my head hurts. Peace and Joy to you all, Eric This message has been edited by Eric D on 06-27-2002 at 09:10 PM

htexpert, this damn tofu dogs keep burning to a crisp. I'm sure it's the nitrites that keep my dogs coming out so well. An as far as offending anyone who worships sacred cows by eating hot dogs, I'm not exactly conviced there's much meat-like product in those things. Perhaps as a 49-er fan, I should try to BBQ some quiche? BTW, I'm only going along with you because you sold me my R3-series HT speakers. I'm humoring you so you don't turn on any special sensors that report what I play in the privacy of my own home to the Feds. kenrat..., Methinks the founding fathers carefully set it up so sometimes a simple majority *isn't* enough. But sometimes we still have to take the step of overturning an constitutional amendment we've found to be a mistake. That reminds me - I think I'll have a beer with that dog on the 4th. And I won't worry about the DEA busting down my door to see if the Pink Floyd on my stereo means there are drugs on-premises. Eric This message has been edited by Eric D on 06-27-2002 at 05:01 PM