OT: A DISCUSSION on Religion and Command and ....

[Guest guest]

Ok, but NO MORE political/religious off topic posts now My 4th of

July weekend leeway period has expired.

 

Folks can now take it off list OR go into the group chat room and duke

it out amongst themselves ;-p

 

*Smile*

Chris (list mom)

 

http://www.alittleolfactory.com

 

 

 

 

nsorcel [jen]

 

 

 

List Mom, I'm on a different time schedule then you stateside folks,

so if this falls outside of the timelimit, I apologize. It will be my

last post on the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hey Jen,

 

> List Mom, I'm on a different time schedule then you stateside folks,

> so if this falls outside of the timelimit, I apologize. It will be my

> last post on the subject.

>

>>Not at all .. cause its a minor point and takes nothing away from the

>>message I tried to deliver .. which is a message I think might have

>>troubled a lot of folks. But I have no regrets for doing that. But I

>>must admit that I am a bit puzzled why you honed in on what to me was

>>the least significant point I made in an 8 page post. ;-)

>>

>>>To say Washington was a " pious man, " well, we might need to define

>>>what " pious " is.

>

> Hi Butch,

 

Howdy.

 

> I find it ironic, that someone who puts out posts and newsletters such

> as yours would lecture ME on lecturing. ;-)

 

Is sorta .. huh? ;-) When we do get off topic like we have been .. it

always results in those topics being used as springboards (by me .. and

others) to launch our own personal beliefs outside the AT/EO area of

concern. And without fail, the majority of the vocal posts are made by

left leaners .. not once can I recall a real square off between a number

of folks on either side of the political fence .. but one would be naive

to believe that there are no others who think like me .. but either feel

overwhelmed by the majority who post .. or just don't wanna get into a

hassle. Like I once wrote on this list .. Fools Rush In .. and I'm

almost always the first and sometimes the only Fool to do that. ;-)

 

> If you feel that I misunderstood you - I feel you've misunderstood

> the spirit of my post too.

 

Maybe. And perhaps some others did too .. some might have interpreted

to mean that Washington was not a man of religious conviction.

 

> It was nothing more than an attempt to engage in a rather friendly

> debate/dialog regarding the people who made this country great. I

> honed in on that particular point because I felt it would provide a

> lighthearted springboard into a subject I found interesting. You often

> post on subjects you find interesting. I deliberately did not address

> other points in your post that you feel were more important, because

> quite frankly, I have different beliefs. It's ok to disagree, but I

> was attempting to keep the spirit of the list/conversation friendly by

> discussing a topic that was way over and done with, and could be

> debated in a friendly way. If my tone or writing belied my intention

> then both you and the group have my apologies.

 

No need for apologies. It was a matter of timing more than the message.

Had it been only your message I could have taken the time to research

a good counter post .. but I had no time to do that cause the skeeters

were swarming and I didn't have time to find my Catnip.

 

> If my post spawned a flood of " Liberal Grams " your way, then I am

> sorry, it was not my intent, but I won't say I am not unhappy to see a

> presence of people who have differing views on a subject stand up and

> speak their mind.

 

That's the timing I speak of .. I was not getting mail .. I was being

bounced by but didn't know it. Then someone wrote me that I had

a half dozen posts to reply to .. I searched the archives and found them

and started replying. ;-)

 

But no need for sorry on anyone's part .. its a norm I've seen on ALL AT

lists since I joined the first one in 1995.. I wrote about this a bit

on this list on 13 Dec 03. A norm it is that folks who have different

ideas than I do (those who lean left) come forward and proclaim how

pleased they are that there are folks on the list who disagree .. and

then the dam breaks lose .. and a flood of Lefty Grams follows. Truth

is, those who do think like me don't post often and I think it is

because they feel overwhelmed by the magnitude of the Lefty Grams .. so

some write me and give their support off line. AT draws more folks who

lean left than it does those who lean toward the conservative .. I'm

used to it .. its nothing new. ;-)

 

>>From a posted message to Kathleen:

>

> K:

>

>>>However I just wanted to say " Thank You " just for myself. I found your

>>>note to be very interesting, thought provoking and even educational.

>

>>>Thank you very much. It's nice to end this fourth (It's now 12 am) by

>>>reading such a note.

> B:

>

>>Since you found it to be so interesting and thought provoking and even

>>educational .. would you mind translating it for me and showing me which

>>parts fit into the above adjectival phrases?

>

> I find myself a little astonished that you would make such a comment.

 

Maybe you shouldn't be astonished .. twas in the heat of a written

battle that I made that comment. How many folks can honestly say that

they debate in accordance with rules marriage counselors/psychologists

draw up as ideal guidelines for communication? Some can do it sometimes

but if we all did it then there would be no need for such difficult to

follow rules. Most married folks understand that well. ;-)

 

Thin skin I don't have and I wish that were the case with all folks. I

try (usually succeed .. on occasion fail) to avoid personal attacks

because I don't care about defending ideas when amongst those I know

disagree and can't be swayed .. at least not as much as some might think

by seeing my writings. I have no dreams of converting left leaners to

right leaners or Christians to the Islamic faith but I do enjoy a gud

tussle as long as folks don't take it personal or take it home with

them. I don't take it personal when folks disagree with me in a forum

like this .. but I detect it easily when they make it personal. And you

didn't .. not talking about you. Some who don't know me do that and

draw erroneous conclusions about who or what I am when I make statements

that shock them .. like saying that security is far more important than

trees. ;-)

 

> It certainly isn't complimentary, or even neutral, and I see no

> smilies or winks - why get so miffed when I only addressed what you

> admit to be an ancillary point in your post?

 

Wasn't intended to be a slam and I wasn't upset .. wasn't intended to be

complimentary either because I held a position in opposition and it

would have been phony to pretend otherwise. I was dealing with the

opposition one at a time .. simple as that. And .. there were no smiley

faces on your post either .. best as I can recall. ;-)

 

And my reply to your post now is to explain where I was when I replied

before .. where we sit and when we are sitting there has much to do with

our actions. Sit in a different place at a different time and its

likely the actions will be different. ;-)

 

Accordingly, I snipped some of your comments below because my choices

were to reply, which would not be wise now as it could keep the ball

rolling .. or to ignore them .. which would be rude. So folks reading

your original post to the list will see much that I snipped from it.

 

>>Probably true .. I didn't focus much of Jefferson in my post .. except

>>to mention his visions of Freedom and Self Rule for mankind.

>

> Jefferson was cited as a contemporary of Washington's. Since you also

> cited him, I thought it would be a fun tie-in to to your post. Again,

> note the use of FUN.

 

OK .. understood.

 

>>>A closer examination of Washington's public works reveals that he

>>>speaks quite loosely of God, never actually saying " God " or " Jesus "

>>>but always referring to the creator by some euphemistic term such as:

>>> " Great Author " . (FWIW, those terms are frequently used in Deism.) Not

>>>even in his last will and testament is there any mention of Jesus or God.

>

>>Sounds fine .. but I'm not sure what the point is.

>

> According to the structure of my post, it should be fairly obvious

> that the point I was trying to make is that Washington was a Deist. ;-)

 

OK .. understood.

 

>>Mayhaps he was meeting a milk maid in the woods .. if so, it would most

>>likely endear him even more to the troops.

>

> <g> Indeed ;-P

 

And likely .. from time to time.

 

> But here's where I get confused, because in your first post you said:

>

>>normal it was for his troops to see him heading out to the woods to

>>talk to his Commander and request guidance.

>

> I was questioning how you know what it was he was doing in the woods.

> I have also read accounts that he was going into the woods to:

 

I really didn't know .. I pulled that from an on-line site that covered

some of Washington's activities. Personalities of the Founding Fathers

is not an area I have spent time researching for fun .. though I spent a

lot of time reading the results of their actions from the period prior

to 1776 and through 1812 or so.

 

> * Smoke marijuana

 

Maybe .. though opium was also popular then.

 

> * Practice masonic rituals to tip the scale of victory in his favor.

 

Naaa .. that too is an area some folks have turned into a conspiracy ..

and since this subject was touched on by some ..

http://www.daywilliams.com/masons_mystery_33rd_parallel.html

 

Many of the Founding Fathers were Masons .. and this touches on the

Masonic influences in early American history. Note that ....

 

> - George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United

> States by Robert Livingston, Grand Master of New York's Masonic Lodge.

> The Bible on which he took his oath was from his own Masonic lodge.

 

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/mashist.htm

 

Here is a short list of some recent and not so recent powerful Masons.

One would have to be very prejudiced to say all were anti-Christian.

 

(King) Umberto Agnelli

George Herbert Walker Bush

Senator Byrd

William J. Clinton

Walt Disney

Sen. Bob Dole

Gerald Rudolf Ford

(King) Frederick II

Rev. Billy Graham

Mark Hatfield

Jesse Helms

J. Edgar Hoover

Rev. Jesse Jackson

Lyndon Baines Johnson

Jack Kemp

Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Thurgood Marshall

Francois Mitterand

Rev. Norman Vincent Peale

(Gen.) Colin L. Powell

Oral Roberts

Franklin D.Roosevelt

Harry Truman

Earl Warren

Earl Wheeler

Leo Wheeler

 

And some truth about Masonry .. http://www.masonicinfo.com/33rdsrule.htm

 

> and now I'll add meeting milkmaids to the list. <G> ;-P

 

Probably a good one to add .. winching was a sport back then. ;-)

 

> snip

>

>>I didn't use the word " Christian, " .. and I implied nothing.

>

> Mea culpa - I got a bit carried away with my point.

 

OK. ;-) My Grandfather was an " honorary " 33d degree Mason .. he spent

most of his life in Scottish Rite Masonry. He had no power .. not even

over himself in the last years and just prior to receiving that honor.

He was like 85 or so then. My Father, Stepfather, Brother, six Uncles

and many Cousins were/are Masons .. mostly 32d Degree .. and my Mother

was in the Order of the Eastern Star. I'm the only one of the males in

my close family that was not a Mason .. and the oath is the reason I am

not .. I can't swear to something I don't truly believe in. But the

Masons and Shriners have done much for America .. and the world.

http://www.shrinershq.org/

 

> snip

>

>>This is not a debate .. this is a lecture. ;-)

>

> As are some of your posts on varying topics.

 

Agree. ;-)

 

> But I wasn't aware of a didactic slant to my post. When I get excited

> about something, I admit I get carried away, so it's possible I came off

> to some as a bit sententious - but I'm certainly not alone there! ;-)

 

I understand the getting excited. I can't say what was distracting me

when I made my first post cause Chris doesn't allow X rated discussion

on the list .. but I was excited about the post too. ;-)

 

> snip

>

>>Maybe he said it .. maybe he didn't .. and maybe the context in which it

>>was said could shine a different light on it. Man can say much when he

>>is confused or uncertain .. and has a few toddies for the body. But if

>>he said it or not I see no positive or negative implications.

>

> Then why cast aspersions on the validity of the cited material?

 

Didn't know I did that .. though I think we can find information that

will contradict some of that material. The point I wanted to defend was

that George Washington was a man of religious conviction .. and the

Founding Fathers did (whether they all wanted to or not) consider or at

least give the impression to the masses that they were considering God

in their planning.

 

> Jefferson wrote VOLUMES. We can't start wondering at which point he

> may or may not have had a drink during various passages. Everyone

> drank back then. By your logic, one could speculate that the

> Declaration *may* have been written after a few drinks, and the

> writers were " confused and uncertain. "

 

I have read that they were .. and had forty-eleven drafts and lots of

arguments and such. But when it was all over they had produced a dang

fine document.

 

>>>And from a letter to John Adams:

>>>

>>> " It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his

>>>doctrines. I am a Materialist. "

>>

>>That can blow a lotta minds here cause the term Materialist has gained

>>new meanings from the original philosophical usage. ;-)

>>

> That's why I was careful to include a developmental paragraph on 18th

> century thinking - so that people would have a context in which to put

> these statements.

 

OK .. Madonna was not considered then. ;-)

 

(snipped)

 

>>My first Undergrad was at Chaminade College, a Marianist School.

>>http://www.chaminade.edu/mbp/presentation.html

>>

>>I am not now nor have I ever been a Catholic. My term paper for

>>Philosophy 101 was entitled, " Religion: The Myth. " My professor

>>counseled me on it .. said he could not give me a passing grade due to

>>the flawed logic .. but he appreciated the presentation and support of

>>the flawed logic. ;-) I told him I would NOT change it and it would

>>stand on its own .. and if he failed me I would reclama and stir up as

>>much crap as I could. The short of it is .. the administration agreed

>>to give me a C for the course .. though my test scores (that is, my

>>regurgitation of the school solutions) was in the A range. It was a

>>good paper .. and not at all critical of religion.

>>

>>I have often written that I believe all good things sprang from man's

>>religions .. Freedom, Laws, Human Rights. etc.

>

> I attended a Moravian College and a secular grad school, I can

> sympathize with you on the BS factor.

 

Yea .. tough it was. And my Sociology professor was a hard core John

Bircher. Only good thing about that was on any written test if one ran

out of ideas they could just write down some of his ravings and get a

good grade .. mattered not if the ravings were pertinent to the question

one was answering. ;-)

 

I later used the same technique while attending the Turkish General

Staff College. I knew Turkish but most of the publications were still

using Ottoman .. the language of the Army .. and each 6 weeks we had a

day long written test. If I was totally lost I would just write,

" Ataturk dediki " .. meaning .. " As Ataturk stated, " and head for the

hills with some of his famous speeches, which I knew well and also

appreciated .. and they got me over the hump cause the Professors were

more impressed by my knowledge of Ataturk than concerned about my lack

of understanding of Ottoman. ;-)

 

My grad degree was from Pepperdine Graduate School of Education and

Psychology, in Los Angeles .. a left leaning school and the alma mater

of Patty Hearst and such. I followed the rules of the day but they were

sorta strange for a man in uniform. ;-) But I was honored to have been

taught by one of the finest and most knowledgeable gentlemen I have ever

known .. Professor Olaf H. Tegner .. now Dean Emeritus Olaf H. Tegner.

Professor " Oly " gave close to 60 years of his life to education and he

is a part of my fond memories of days past .. plus the one who motivated

me to continue to support the Alumni Scholarship Fund .. though I know

my piddly checks are chump change cause Pepperdine is not poor. :-)

 

> Regarding religion, it's also accurate to say that many MANY bad

> things have come from it too - crusades, witch hunts, persecution,

> jihad, inquisitions, bigotry, ignorance, etc.

 

Sure .. that's why I qualified my statement. I wrote ..

 

> Religious conviction is a good thing methinks .. if not badly displaced.

 

(snipped)

 

> Conversely, I think I could come up with plenty of citations showing

> the abhorrence the FF had for the idea of government that smacked of

> religiosity. But that's NOT to say that their religious beliefs,

> didn't influence their thoughts - just that they were loathe to impose

> them on anyone else as a means of government.

 

I believe you could .. and I believe there could be some that would be

in opposition to those documents .. that's my experience with research.

 

> FWIW, I would think the lack of religious words, or mention of God in

> the Constitution would be reference enough.

 

Hawhawhaw .. ;-) I reckon one could draw that conclusion if they wanted

to .. but considering that the Constitution is a Legal Document .. drawn

up like lawyers would write one today .. we might miss the intent of the

writers if we focus only on the words .. some Supreme Court Justices and

Constitutional Law experts do that from time to time. And also, if we

wanted to we could ask what " Blessings " they were speaking of and from

whom they wished to " secure " these blessings. It starts with those

words .. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

 

It was from religious humma-humma (among other things) that the wise men

of the time wanted to protect the new Nation .. it was not that they

were against religion .. just against it being used as a tool to govern.

 

Legal Documents SHOULD BE but rarely are simple .. that Legal Document

was magnificently simple .. and later amendments went into more detail.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm

 

>>I would suggest you look more closely at the Bill of Rights and see the

>>what for and why it was determined to be needed in the second place. It

>>had nothing to do with equal treatment of non-Christians. Nice to think

>>that they were that Avant Garde in their reasoning but they weren't.

>>Nor did they plan for telephones or spaceships or Mad Cow or AIDS.

>

> Have done, and still feel proud and happy. I'm not sure though,

> given the tumultuous history of the colonies in regards to religious

> persecution, you are on the mark here. And as for unforeseen events,

> see the quote below:

>

>>>Lastly, I wanted to share this strangely prophetic quote, so

>>>relevant to our times:

>

> " I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution

> for heresy, or a three months' imprisonment for not comprehending the

> mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people infallible

> -- a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of

> protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides,

> the spirit of the times may alter -- will alter. Our rulers will

> become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become

> persecutor, and better men become his victims. " (Thomas Jefferson,

> Notes on Virginia)

>

> I think it's clear he was thinking on future events - though I'll

> concede he may not have envisioned Internet porn. ;-P

 

Agree fer'shur .. and especially issues of children's access to same.

 

>>True it was .. and the Religious Zealotry of the time was that of

>>the Church of England.

>

> No, the zealots at that time were protestants: the Calvinists,

> Presbyterian, and Baptists etc. The Anglican Church was considered

> the norm, in fact, it was the Church the George Washington belonged to

> - and one could hardly call him a religious zealot.

 

Right you are .. I was too general .. ran out of time to look for more

facts. ;-)

 

>>I think Jefferson and all the Founding Fathers would be shocked to see

>>what " progress " we have made. ;-)

>

> Even from different ends, I think we can all agree on this point.

 

And we ain't even got started yet. :-(

 

>>I hope you had fun looking up all those references, highlighting and

>>pasting and such .. cause you done sho'nuf worked hard to disprove

>>points that were never made in the second place. ;-)

>

> Indeed I did. History is fun for me. I enjoy reading. People should

> do more of it. Reading those words again on the Fourth really got me

> in touch again with the spirit of my country, and reminded me why I

> love it so much. As far as highlighting and pasting - I pasted

> nothing that cannot be found in books that I own, and included the

> source so that people may feel free to go read for themselves and

> determine if I cited out of context. As far as implications of spin,

> I feel my post has no more spin than your average expository piece

> does - possibly less because I relied on the words of the men

> themselves, not news bits from talking heads or made up wishful

> thinking designed to sway the minds of those who cannot make up their

> own. (read: media)

 

I own few books on the founding of America .. its hard to move even my

paperbacks now that I'm not eligible for shipping, etc., at Uncle

Sugar's expense, and I'll likely leave 90% + of all property I own here

in Turkey to friends when I decide to buy that one way ticket. ;-)

 

> Whew.

 

Yep. :-P

 

> In summation:

>

>>1. In the days of our Founding Fathers belief in God was accepted as a

>>norm and not even debated in public.

>

> Certainly. Deist, not atheist

 

OK.

 

>>2. Though you didn't touch on it at all .. during those days Papists,

>>Mohammedans (that was the term then) and Jews were not held in high

>>esteem.

>

> Then it's all the more touching to me that Washington would include

> them amongst his servants without prejudice.

 

IF .. that was his true intent. If it was then he was even more capable

of seeing into the future than we give him credit for being.

 

>>3. I didn't mention the word " Christianity " in my post.

>

> Mea Culpa

 

OK. :-)

 

>>4. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of references to religion in

>>the writings of the Founding Fathers .. so this does not support your

>>claim that they didn't believe religion had no place in government.

>

> Forming government - yes, administering government - no. It's clear

> as a bell. There is NO mention of religion in the Constitution!

 

Correct .. but for the reasons I stated above. It would not have been

appropriate .. we were not even declaring an Official Religion.

 

> There are many many references to religion made by various men, but

> when it came down to it - there is a distinct absence of religion in

> the documents that form the core of our Democracy.

 

I think that is appropriate too as such documents must be legal by

nature and subject to review by lawyers/judges.

 

> The motto: In God We trust only came about in the 1950's, at first it

> was : E Pluribus Unum. (Out of many, One)

 

Yep .. matter of fact.

 

>>5. I personally believe religion has no place in government and I

>>personally believe government has no right to make laws that restrict

>>the freedom of religion .. or the placement of the Ten Commandments ..

>>or the placement of Nativity Scenes .. and so forth. But they damn sure

>>do it .. and they do it contrary to the Bill of Rights.

>

> Then why the heck are we arguing? <G> ;-P

 

That .. dear lady .. is why I retitled this a Lecture .. because I was

not sure what you were disagreeing with me on. ;-)

 

>>> " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

>>>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of

>>>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to

>>>assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

>>>(Article I, Bill of Rights)

>>

>>That is what most folks misinterpret as being the so-called separation

>>of Church and State.

>

>>>In fact they felt so strongly against religion in government that they

>>>made it the first subject in the Bill of Rights.

>>

>>I think you are reading Article 1 in a manner that supports your

>>lecture. In fact, the intent was to promote no religion over another.'

>>This is the interpretation of folks much wiser than I am.

>

> No, this is *JUST* an interpretation. The words are there. This is

> why we vote - to decide WHO does the interpreting and makes it stick.

 

But .. we don't get to vote for those who make those determinations ..

the Supreme Court Justices. In the purest form we can say our proxies

vote for us .. but that's kinda idealistic. ;-)

http://www.usscplus.com/info/justices.htm

 

(Snipped)

 

>>If anyone wants to take a close look at the lives and times or

>>Locke and Paine they will find they were very special " characters " in a

>>time where man was seeking truth.

>

>>Locke was a philosopher .. not a bad duty if one can get away with it.

>>But its impossible to get two philosophers to agree even on the time of

>>day. http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/constitution/locke-bio.html

>

> Agreement has never been the point of philosophy, rather, the contrary.

 

Right .. and a philosopher gotta die afore he is recognized. ;-)

 

>>I am a bit prejudiced in this regard as I have been there and done that.

>>There is no person more lonely than a commander. He can get input

>>from the specialists on his staff but when it comes down to making the

>>final command decision the burden rests with him/her alone. In many

>>cases information available to the commander is such that trying to

>>second guess the outcome aforehand is the determining factor on which

>>way the command decision will flow .. which is better than flipping a

>>coin .. sometimes. In such cases, the wisdom of that decision will be

>>known after the fact .. based on the success or failure of the mission.

>>And the monkey rests on the back of that commander .. he will get his

>>just reward or he will be crucified.

>

> Butch, I'm the wife of a Commander - I DO understand.

 

Thankee ma'am. :-)

 

>>My Officer Efficiency Reports always had me in the block of Promote

>>Immediately and all the other good humma-humma buzz words that we need

>>to climb the ladder. More than once I took over commands that were

>>falling on their asses and turned them into smooth operations .. and

>>even though then (as is the case now) I had total confidence in my own

>>ability as a commander and leader .. there were times when I was not

>>totally comfortable with decisions I had to make .. especially in the

>>'Nam. But I was one of the lucky ones .. I called the coin correctly.

>>

>>So whatever I believed was sufficient .. and at that time I had a very

>>strong belief in a Supreme Being .. and talked to that being often.

>

> My husband is a Buddhist (which does not necessarily equal pacifist

> BTW) and I know that dharma probably enters into his command decisions

> as well. FWIW, he, too is an promote immediately kinda guy.

 

Good for him .. on all counts .. and good it is that he believes that

there are forces greater than himself .. even some that are inside

himself waiting to be brought forth that are greater than himself. :-)

 

>>>Anyway, thanks for inspiring me to spend part of my holiday with my

>>>nose in the writings of these incredible men. I can think of no

>>>better way to cherish our freedom than to remember it's roots.

>>

>>You are most welcome. We learn as we teach .. that is a fact. :-)

>>

>>But as an amateur but dedicated historian, I understand that pulling

>>references from here and there can support any point we wish to make

>>because they will fit the context of the argument.

>

> Absolutely. As a person with a degree in English, I understand that

> citing text with references in the only way to support your point in

> expository writing. That way people can go and read the quote in the

> *context of the larger work.* It's certainly more effective than just

> opining with no documentary evidence at all....

 

OK .. Agree.

 

>>My intent in making a VERY SHORT statement on George Washington's habit

>>of praying was that he was NOT a pompous ass .. not a typical Redcoat or

>>Lobster Back or whatever most British Officers were noted for being at

>>that time .. and that he was able to inspire a bunch of rag tag, poorly

>>armed, poorly fed, poorly clothed and poorly trained ignorant kuntry folks

>>and keep them pointed in the right direction .. which was the direction of

>>the mightiest army in Europe .. and eventually conquer that mighty army.

>

> Agreed, I never took issue with that. Let me reiterate once again

> that I used your post as a springboard into another topic, with

> thoughts of a friendly Fourth-of-July discussion in mind. A " no

> gloves necessary " type of thing.

 

OK .. understood.

 

> My apologies to you, Chris and the rest of the list for having failed.

 

None required or desired from my end .. but the sentiment is

appreciated. :-)

 

>>>Respectfully exercising her right to dissent, ;-P

>

>>Not sure what you were disagreeing with .. but I agree with most of it

>>and disagree with the rest. ;-)

>

> I was having a little Fourth of July fun, hence the parting comment.

 

Same here .. but I was also serious .. I meant what I said. I was sorta

confused about where you were going and what you disagreed with .. and

now I think I know a LITTLE bit more about it. ;-)

 

> Disagreement is all well. I'm sorry this ruffled some feathers, it's

> truly wasn't my intent.

 

Didn't ruffle mine at all .. but it encouraged some others who might

have had ruffled feathers to step forward. :-P

 

> May all be Well and Happy!

> JenB

 

For sure .. agree and agree .. and y'all keep smiling. :-) Butch