"No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee



 Religions > Atheism > "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 4 of 8

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "human"
Date: 08 Dec 2005 01:23:05 PM
Object: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee
This "community columnist" column is in today's Milwaukee paper. I hope
that George Ott and the Journal Sentinel are swamped with replies.
His eddress, clearly visible on the column clipping is <gott @ wi.rr.com>
[remove spaces]
There is a delay with community columns appearing on-line at
www.jsonline.com . It will be there in about a week.
Here is an excerpt [keyed in, so any typos are my responsibility]:
"The phrase 'constitutionally mandated separation of church and state'
doesn't exist. It never has."
and
[after quoting 'Congress shall make no law respecting ...']
So goes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of those who first colonized this great nation came here fleeing
religious persecution and looking for religious freedom in the new world.
They sought freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Divine providence,
God, our creator are all mentioned prominently in this nation's founding
documents.
How ironic that over the past few decades there has been a move by a
minority of Americans to remove any reference to religion from public
view and discourse. Not all religion, just Christianity.
The meaning of the First Amendment has been twisted and perverted beyond
recognition. It clearly states that Congress shall make no law
establishing a religion. The government may not declare an 'official
religion.' It also states that the government may not prohibit the free
exercise of religion."
"The 'no religion anywhere, anytime, for any reason' crowd has singled out
Christian religious symbols and references.
No Ten Commandments, no nativity scenes, no crucifixes, no Pledge of
Allegiance. I cannot believe that running away from the very symbols of
the faith that was central in the formation of this country can possibly
be good for this nation. How does turning our back on our religious roots
make us a better people?
You will notice that any time people have a problem with a religious
display on public property they run to the courts. Look at what that guy
in California did trying to get the words 'under God' in the Pledge of
Allegiance declared unconstitutional. He went to the most liberal court in
America, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
These people don't dare try pulling this via the referendum because they
know they will lose. They seek out like-minded judges and have displays of
the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses by judicial fiat.
As a nation, it is time we took a long look at the moral direction these
people want the country to move in. A nativity scene in front of a
courthouse does not consitute the government establishing a religion.
For those who seem bent on removing every single piece of evidence of
religion in our society from view, I encourage you to read and reread the
First Amendment."
----------
Please, please, please do not take George Ott's sentiments or words as my
own!
----------
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is not a
reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.

User: "nJb"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 23 Dec 2005 03:58:47 PM
KRP wrote:

"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dofltr$ehd$1@news.xmission.com...


Actually with more than "SOME" passing familiarity with the agency (and
other LE agencies in Utah) historically the agencies have always had a
disproportionately large population of Mormons on them. Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities with less
than 50% LDS populations.


So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are or
were 100% Mormon? Citation please.



Did I say "100%" DID I? Or did I say "disproportionately large"



You said "disproportionately large" and then added "Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS". So yes, you did say 100%.



I think a quote may have gotten jumbled there. I may have screwed it up,
but I was quoting somebody else. I am not aware of ANY department in Utah
where ALL of the officers are LDS. There may be.


I don't recall Tooele having its own police department.



http://www.usacops.com/ut/p84074/



Do you suppose they are 100% LDS?



I have NO idea, must I have?



And I have NO idea about

Price. Murray was over 50%.
Under Sheriff Hayward the SLSD was well near 80% or higher. Provo was
almost 100% as was Ogden and Logan.



Again, let's look at what you said:



"Some municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities
with less than 50% LDS populations."



I believe that was not *MY* comment. I may have screwed up quotation.


Some? Name one. Name one community with less than 50% LDS population that
has a municipal agency comprised of 100% LDS members.



Okay if we want to play matching smartass games.. We could discuss
Hurricane, Utah. Since the people there are 100% part of a "fundamentalist
cult" and NOT LDS by any reasonable interpretation - and the area is
patrolled by the Sheriff's department (all LDS at one time) I think that
might qualify. BUT some folks would lump that group in with LDS and we'd be
jerking off over semantics all year.

Perhaps it's my reading comprehension. Are you saying that 100% of the
people in Hurricane are part of a fundamentalist cult? Proof?
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://www.glassartguild.com/gallery/jack_bowman
.
User: " KRP"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 24 Dec 2005 07:48:50 AM
"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dohrq7$m19$1@news.xmission.com...


Actually with more than "SOME" passing familiarity with the agency
(and other LE agencies in Utah) historically the agencies have always
had a disproportionately large population of Mormons on them. Some
municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities
with less than 50% LDS populations.


So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are
or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.



Did I say "100%" DID I? Or did I say "disproportionately large"



You said "disproportionately large" and then added "Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS". So yes, you did say 100%.



I think a quote may have gotten jumbled there. I may have screwed it up,
but I was quoting somebody else. I am not aware of ANY department in Utah
where ALL of the officers are LDS. There may be.


I don't recall Tooele having its own police department.



http://www.usacops.com/ut/p84074/



Do you suppose they are 100% LDS?



I have NO idea, must I have?



And I have NO idea about

Price. Murray was over 50%.
Under Sheriff Hayward the SLSD was well near 80% or higher. Provo was
almost 100% as was Ogden and Logan.



Again, let's look at what you said:



"Some municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in
communities with less than 50% LDS populations."



I believe that was not *MY* comment. I may have screwed up quotation.


Some? Name one. Name one community with less than 50% LDS population that
has a municipal agency comprised of 100% LDS members.



Okay if we want to play matching smartass games.. We could discuss
Hurricane, Utah. Since the people there are 100% part of a
"fundamentalist cult" and NOT LDS by any reasonable interpretation - and
the area is patrolled by the Sheriff's department (all LDS at one time) I
think that might qualify. BUT some folks would lump that group in with
LDS and we'd be jerking off over semantics all year.


Perhaps it's my reading comprehension. Are you saying that 100% of the
people in Hurricane are part of a fundamentalist cult? Proof?

Yeah Jack it is a tiny community and all of the people are what are loosely
called "fundamentalist Mormons" which is a misnomer. None of them are LDS..
The last I saw they ALL were part of the cult there.
.
User: "nJb"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 26 Dec 2005 12:22:12 PM
KRP wrote:

"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dohrq7$m19$1@news.xmission.com...

Actually with more than "SOME" passing familiarity with the agency
(and other LE agencies in Utah) historically the agencies have always
had a disproportionately large population of Mormons on them. Some
municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities
with less than 50% LDS populations.


So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are
or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.



Did I say "100%" DID I? Or did I say "disproportionately large"



You said "disproportionately large" and then added "Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS". So yes, you did say 100%.



I think a quote may have gotten jumbled there. I may have screwed it up,
but I was quoting somebody else. I am not aware of ANY department in Utah
where ALL of the officers are LDS. There may be.



I don't recall Tooele having its own police department.



http://www.usacops.com/ut/p84074/



Do you suppose they are 100% LDS?



I have NO idea, must I have?




And I have NO idea about


Price. Murray was over 50%.
Under Sheriff Hayward the SLSD was well near 80% or higher. Provo was
almost 100% as was Ogden and Logan.



Again, let's look at what you said:



"Some municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in
communities with less than 50% LDS populations."



I believe that was not *MY* comment. I may have screwed up quotation.



Some? Name one. Name one community with less than 50% LDS population that
has a municipal agency comprised of 100% LDS members.



Okay if we want to play matching smartass games.. We could discuss
Hurricane, Utah. Since the people there are 100% part of a
"fundamentalist cult" and NOT LDS by any reasonable interpretation - and
the area is patrolled by the Sheriff's department (all LDS at one time) I
think that might qualify. BUT some folks would lump that group in with
LDS and we'd be jerking off over semantics all year.


Perhaps it's my reading comprehension. Are you saying that 100% of the
people in Hurricane are part of a fundamentalist cult? Proof?




Yeah Jack it is a tiny community and all of the people are what are loosely
called "fundamentalist Mormons" which is a misnomer. None of them are LDS..
The last I saw they ALL were part of the cult there.


Wrong again.
http://hurricane.areaconnect.com/churches.htm
Chr-Jesus Christ-Lds Seminary - More Info / Map
310 W 100 S, Hurricane, UT 84737
Category: Churches
Church Of Jesus Christ Of Lds - More Info / Map
155 E 1050 N,
270 S 700 W,
274 S 100 W,
310 W 100 S,
350 W 300 N,
37 N 200 W,
390 W 1700 S,
677 S 700 W, Hurricane, UT 84737
Category: Churches
Church Of Jesus Christ Of Lds - More Info / Map
274 S 100 W,
37 N Mill St,
390 W 1700 S,
452 N 2600 W,
677 S 700 W, Hurricane, UT 84737
Category: Churches
First Southern Baptist Church - More Info / Map
1565 W State St, Hurricane, UT 84737
Category: Churches
Hurrican Congregation-Jehovah - More Info / Map
160 N 200 W, Hurricane, UT 84737
Category: Churches
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://www.glassartguild.com/gallery/jack_bowman
.
User: " KRP"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 27 Dec 2005 08:03:01 AM
"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dopc6s$3oo$1@news.xmission.com...

Actually with more than "SOME" passing familiarity with the agency
(and other LE agencies in Utah) historically the agencies have
always had a disproportionately large population of Mormons on them.
Some municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in
communities with less than 50% LDS populations.


So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake
are or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.



Did I say "100%" DID I? Or did I say "disproportionately large"



You said "disproportionately large" and then added "Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS". So yes, you did say 100%.



I think a quote may have gotten jumbled there. I may have screwed it
up, but I was quoting somebody else. I am not aware of ANY department in
Utah where ALL of the officers are LDS. There may be.



I don't recall Tooele having its own police department.



http://www.usacops.com/ut/p84074/



Do you suppose they are 100% LDS?



I have NO idea, must I have?




And I have NO idea about


Price. Murray was over 50%.
Under Sheriff Hayward the SLSD was well near 80% or higher. Provo was
almost 100% as was Ogden and Logan.



Again, let's look at what you said:



"Some municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in
communities with less than 50% LDS populations."



I believe that was not *MY* comment. I may have screwed up quotation.



Some? Name one. Name one community with less than 50% LDS population
that has a municipal agency comprised of 100% LDS members.



Okay if we want to play matching smartass games.. We could discuss
Hurricane, Utah. Since the people there are 100% part of a
"fundamentalist cult" and NOT LDS by any reasonable interpretation -
and the area is patrolled by the Sheriff's department (all LDS at one
time) I think that might qualify. BUT some folks would lump that group
in with LDS and we'd be jerking off over semantics all year.


Perhaps it's my reading comprehension. Are you saying that 100% of the
people in Hurricane are part of a fundamentalist cult? Proof?




Yeah Jack it is a tiny community and all of the people are what are
loosely called "fundamentalist Mormons" which is a misnomer. None of them
are LDS..
The last I saw they ALL were part of the cult there.



Wrong again.

http://hurricane.areaconnect.com/churches.htm

Apparently I am. When I was in Utah 25+ years ago, Hurricane was a town of
only about 1,000. I see it has grown and changed.
.




User: "human"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 22 Dec 2005 07:40:07 PM
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Kenneth Pangborn KRP wrote:

I don't
recall Tooele having its own police department.

http://www.co.tooele.ut.us/highwayp.htm

And I have NO idea about Price.

http://highwaypatrol.utah.gov/history/chapter1/110.html

Murray was over 50%.

http://www.google.com/local?hl=en&q=highway+patrol&near=Murray%2C+UT&btnG=Search

Under Sheriff Hayward the SLSD was well near 80% or higher. Provo was
almost 100% as was Ogden and Logan.

Happy Birthday Joseph:
http://www.times-online.com/articles/2005/12/22/news/03church.txt
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.
User: " KRP"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 23 Dec 2005 04:12:05 AM
CAROL LEE SMITH - - - EXPERT!!!!
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051222192936.13188C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Kenneth Pangborn KRP wrote:

I don't recall Tooele having its own police department.

http://www.co.tooele.ut.us/highwayp.htm

Carol you are about as smart as a BRICK! That is NOT oh great DUNCE
the "City of Tooele" (Pronounce "two ill eh) police department. It IS the
Utah Highway patrol office for that area. Christ Carol I know you believe
in LINKS but learn what the hell you are talking about and how to READ..

And I have NO idea about Price.

http://highwaypatrol.utah.gov/history/chapter1/110.html

And the HISTORY of the Utah Highway patrol PROVES somehting about the
CITY of Prtice Utah HOW Carol???

Murray was over 50%.

http://www.google.com/local?hl=en&q=highway+patrol&near=Murray%2C+UT&btnG=Search

Carol the CITY of Murray, Utah has its OWN municipal police department.
THAT was what I was addressing. NOT the Utah highway partol covering the
INTERSTATE that runs through Murray. Sometimes, Carol, you can be especially
DENSE.. Carol here is some help for somebody as stupid as you. The city of
Murray, Utah is a suburb of Salt Lake City, it is roughly to the south
center of Salt Lake County. It is a working class suburb. Actrually a very
nice place. I don't know what your purpose of the above is but it has ZERO
relavence to the POLICE DEPARTMENT of Murray.
CIVICS LESSON: Now Carol for the SLOW learners (you) I will try to explain
this to you. In the United States we have several political subdivisions.
Each of those sub divisions offer services to the people. In most places it
starts with the municipality, then the county, then the date and finally the
federal governments. ONE of the services provided is law enforcement
ptotection. This is a "Constitutional" office and function. (Am I using
words too large for you? I hate to confuse an old bat fighting off
senility.) In the case in point we are speaking of law enforcement. In Utah,
like many other states, some municipalities do not have their own police
departments, most do, but a few do not and they rely on the COUNTY Sheriff
to provide law enforcement services. NOT the "Highway Patrol" (Note YOUR
"history was from 1923- 1939) NEWS FLASH: This is almost 2006 Carol. TRY to
keep up!
Murray Utah has had its own police department since roughly 1979. Before
that it relied on the Salt Lake City PD and the Salt Lake County Sheriff for
law enforcement. I am not sure of Tooele a far western suburb (well not
really a suburb, I'd better not say that to somebody from Tooele) of Salt
Lake City, that they had their own muicipal PD. I *think* they were
patrolled by the Sheriff's department.
The Utah Highway Patrol GERNERALLY has the responsibility for traffic
and law enforcement on Utah's highways. As a general rule they don't patrol
alleys nor do they patrol shopping malls. While they have statewide law
enforcement powers, they generally don't much get involved off the highways.
But Carol there are always EXCEPTIONS to any genjeral rule.

Under Sheriff Hayward the SLSD was well near 80% or higher. Provo was
almost 100% as was Ogden and Logan.

Happy Birthday Joseph:
http://www.times-online.com/articles/2005/12/22/news/03church.txt

And again Carol this is relavent TO??????????? Proving WHAT rectal point of
yours??? Does it somehow address the manpower of the Salt Lake County
Sherioff's department? Well Carol, does it? NO! More ***** you throw in
to confuse the issue and make it APPEAR that you are proving something. One
more CAROL SMITH RED HERRING to chase!
Now WHAT stupid road do you wish to take us down screaming and clawing
to escape next?
.

User: "nJb"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 22 Dec 2005 08:11:49 PM
human wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Kenneth Pangborn KRP wrote:


I don't
recall Tooele having its own police department.



http://www.co.tooele.ut.us/highwayp.htm

The Tooele city PD.
http://www.usacops.com/ut/p84074/



And I have NO idea about Price.



http://highwaypatrol.utah.gov/history/chapter1/110.html

They have a city PD.
http://www.priceutah.net/



Murray was over 50%.



http://www.google.com/local?hl=en&q=highway+patrol&near=Murray%2C+UT&btnG=Search



Under Sheriff Hayward the SLSD was well near 80% or higher. Provo was
almost 100% as was Ogden and Logan.



Happy Birthday Joseph:
http://www.times-online.com/articles/2005/12/22/news/03church.txt




"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker

--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://www.glassartguild.com/gallery/jack_bowman
.
User: " KRP"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 23 Dec 2005 04:17:21 AM
"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dofm90$er1$1@news.xmission.com...

human wrote:


I don't recall Tooele having its own police department.



http://www.co.tooele.ut.us/highwayp.htm


The Tooele city PD.

She don't know the difference.

http://www.usacops.com/ut/p84074/

When did the Tooele department start? I know Murray came into being in
about 1979? Did Tooele have its own department before then? I wasn't aware
of it, I never went out that way.

And I have NO idea about Price.



http://highwaypatrol.utah.gov/history/chapter1/110.html

They have a city PD.

That's nice.
.



User: "human"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 22 Dec 2005 07:16:24 PM
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, nJb wrote:

Ken Pangborn KRP wrote:

Actually with more than "SOME" passing familiarity with the agency (and
other LE agencies in Utah) historically the agencies have always had a
disproportionately large population of Mormons on them. Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities with less than
50% LDS populations.

So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are
or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.

Sorry Jack,
Kenneth Pangborn doesn't do citations.
He wouldn't know a citation if it bit him on the butt.

Having BEEN a reserve deputy with the Salt Lake
Sheriff's office the department was over 80% LDS.
The reasons are highly complex.

"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.
User: " KRP"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 23 Dec 2005 03:49:21 AM
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051222191400.13188A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, nJb wrote:

Ken Pangborn KRP wrote:


Actually with more than "SOME" passing familiarity with the agency (and
other LE agencies in Utah) historically the agencies have always had a
disproportionately large population of Mormons on them. Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities with less
than
50% LDS populations.


So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are
or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.



Sorry Jack,

Kenneth Pangborn doesn't do citations.


You two need adjoining beds in the Looney bib.
.


User: "DianaC"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 22 Dec 2005 11:27:21 AM
nJb wrote:

KRP wrote:

"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:doads0$te9$1@news.xmission.com...

Me too, Diana. My guess is that the percentage of UHP that are not LDS
is greater than the percentage for the overall population. In any
event,
this is a ***** lawsuit that makes us normal atheists look bad.
They're teaching ID as science in Kansas and we're worried about
something we fly by at 65mph?



Actually, the percentage of LDS in law enforcement fields is higher
than in the general population. Given the relatively small numbers of
Mormons out there, they are quite disproportionately represented in the
police, FBI, Secret Service and the military.

(shrug)

We aren't pacifists, never pretended to be.

Diana


We're talking UHP here.



This is the first I've heard that the UHP was NOT a law enforcement
agency.


I'm saying that I don't believe the percentage of Mormon UHP officers is
as high as the Mormon percentage in Utah. Upon reconsideration, I'm
probably wrong. I'm aware that the numbers in the FBI, CIA, and Secret
Service are higher than the national percentage.




Actually with more than "SOME" passing familiarity with the agency (and
other LE agencies in Utah) historically the agencies have always had a
disproportionately large population of Mormons on them. Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities with less than
50% LDS populations.


So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are
or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.

Even I can see that this is NOT what he was saying. Where do you get
"the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are or were 100%
Mormon" from quotes like ""some municipal agencies were comprised of
100% LDS members in communities with less than 50% LDS populations."
and saying that as a reserve member of the Sherrif's department in Salt
Lake City, he found about 80%?
<snip to end>
.
User: " KRP"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 22 Dec 2005 11:40:39 AM
"DianaC" <dianaiad@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1135272441.202051.205180@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are
or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.


Even I can see that this is NOT what he was saying. Where do you get
"the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are or were 100%
Mormon" from quotes like ""some municipal agencies were comprised of
100% LDS members in communities with less than 50% LDS populations."
and saying that as a reserve member of the Sherrif's department in Salt
Lake City, he found about 80%?

On top of that, AS I RECALL, when I was there the Sheriff's office patrolled
Tooele. I could be wrong. Price I have NO idea. But there are some
departments I knew fairly well.
The outfit I worked for for a time had the state contract to equip patrol
cars with radios and lightbars and sirens. So I got to meet lots of folks.
Plus if you live there you get a sense of things especially when you're not
LDS. (Tried it, it wasn't for me.)
.

User: "nJb"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 22 Dec 2005 07:56:32 PM
DianaC wrote:

nJb wrote:

KRP wrote:


"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:doads0$te9$1@news.xmission.com...


Me too, Diana. My guess is that the percentage of UHP that are not LDS
is greater than the percentage for the overall population. In any
event,
this is a ***** lawsuit that makes us normal atheists look bad.
They're teaching ID as science in Kansas and we're worried about
something we fly by at 65mph?



Actually, the percentage of LDS in law enforcement fields is higher
than in the general population. Given the relatively small numbers of
Mormons out there, they are quite disproportionately represented in the
police, FBI, Secret Service and the military.

(shrug)

We aren't pacifists, never pretended to be.

Diana


We're talking UHP here.



This is the first I've heard that the UHP was NOT a law enforcement
agency.


I'm saying that I don't believe the percentage of Mormon UHP officers is
as high as the Mormon percentage in Utah. Upon reconsideration, I'm
probably wrong. I'm aware that the numbers in the FBI, CIA, and Secret
Service are higher than the national percentage.




Actually with more than "SOME" passing familiarity with the agency (and
other LE agencies in Utah) historically the agencies have always had a
disproportionately large population of Mormons on them. Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities with less than
50% LDS populations.


So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are
or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.



Even I can see that this is NOT what he was saying. Where do you get
"the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are or were 100%
Mormon" from quotes like ""some municipal agencies were comprised of
100% LDS members in communities with less than 50% LDS populations."
and saying that as a reserve member of the Sherrif's department in Salt
Lake City, he found about 80%?

<snip to end>

"Some municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in
communities with less than 50% LDS populations."
Name a police force comprised of 100% LDS members. "Police force" was
the topic. There might be a couple but not in communities with less than
50% LDS populations but I'm listening.
Name the other municipalities with less than 50% LDS populations other
than the three I mentioned. There may be more. Which one(s) have a
police force that is 100% Mormon.
What did *you* think he meant.
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom

.
User: " KRP"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 23 Dec 2005 04:19:15 AM
"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:doflcg$e5g$1@news.xmission.com...


So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are
or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.



Even I can see that this is NOT what he was saying. Where do you get
"the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are or were 100%
Mormon" from quotes like ""some municipal agencies were comprised of
100% LDS members in communities with less than 50% LDS populations."
and saying that as a reserve member of the Sherrif's department in Salt
Lake City, he found about 80%?

<snip to end>


"Some municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities
with less than 50% LDS populations."

That was somebody else's statement I quoted it.

Name a police force comprised of 100% LDS members. "Police force" was the
topic. There might be a couple but not in communities with less than 50%
LDS populations but I'm listening.

*I* said "predominantly."
.
User: "nJb"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 23 Dec 2005 04:01:49 PM
KRP wrote:

"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:doflcg$e5g$1@news.xmission.com...

So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are
or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.



Even I can see that this is NOT what he was saying. Where do you get
"the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are or were 100%
Mormon" from quotes like ""some municipal agencies were comprised of
100% LDS members in communities with less than 50% LDS populations."
and saying that as a reserve member of the Sherrif's department in Salt
Lake City, he found about 80%?

<snip to end>

"Some municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities
with less than 50% LDS populations."



That was somebody else's statement I quoted it.

Here is your post verbatim:
==================================================================================
Actually with more than "SOME" passing familiarity with the agency (and
other LE agencies in Utah) historically the agencies have always had a
disproportionately large population of Mormons on them. Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities with less than
50% LDS populations. Having BEEN a reserve deputy with the Salt Lake
Sheriff's office the department was over 80% LDS. The reasons are highly
complex.
======================================================================================
How can any reasonable person assume that you were quoting someone else?



Name a police force comprised of 100% LDS members. "Police force" was the
topic. There might be a couple but not in communities with less than 50%
LDS populations but I'm listening.



*I* said "predominantly."

I don't see that word in your post.



--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://www.glassartguild.com/gallery/jack_bowman
.
User: " KRP"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 24 Dec 2005 07:51:04 AM
"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dohrvs$m19$2@news.xmission.com...

So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are
or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.



Even I can see that this is NOT what he was saying. Where do you get
"the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are or were 100%
Mormon" from quotes like ""some municipal agencies were comprised of
100% LDS members in communities with less than 50% LDS populations."
and saying that as a reserve member of the Sherrif's department in Salt
Lake City, he found about 80%?

<snip to end>

"Some municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in
communities with less than 50% LDS populations."



That was somebody else's statement I quoted it.


Here is your post verbatim:
==================================================================================

Actually with more than "SOME" passing familiarity with the agency (and
other LE agencies in Utah) historically the agencies have always had a
disproportionately large population of Mormons on them. Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities with less than
50% LDS populations. Having BEEN a reserve deputy with the Salt Lake
Sheriff's office the department was over 80% LDS. The reasons are highly
complex.

======================================================================================

How can any reasonable person assume that you were quoting someone else?



Name a police force comprised of 100% LDS members. "Police force" was the
topic. There might be a couple but not in communities with less than 50%
LDS populations but I'm listening.



*I* said "predominantly."


I don't see that word in your post.

Okay go back in it. I actually said "disproportionately" However that line
of 100% LDS was a quote from somebody else I screwed up. How many times must
I say that? When I replied to the message I accidentally folded it into my
reply. Granted it is MY screwup. So toss bricks at me for THAT.
.
User: "nJb"

Title: Re: "No FFR" --George Ott, Milwaukee 25 Dec 2005 08:10:23 PM
KRP wrote:

"nJb" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dohrvs$m19$2@news.xmission.com...

So, you're saying the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are
or were 100% Mormon? Citation please.



Even I can see that this is NOT what he was saying. Where do you get
"the police force in Tooele, Price, and Salt Lake are or were 100%
Mormon" from quotes like ""some municipal agencies were comprised of
100% LDS members in communities with less than 50% LDS populations."
and saying that as a reserve member of the Sherrif's department in Salt
Lake City, he found about 80%?

<snip to end>

"Some municipal agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in
communities with less than 50% LDS populations."



That was somebody else's statement I quoted it.


Here is your post verbatim:
==================================================================================

Actually with more than "SOME" passing familiarity with the agency (and
other LE agencies in Utah) historically the agencies have always had a
disproportionately large population of Mormons on them. Some municipal
agencies were comprised of 100% LDS members in communities with less than
50% LDS populations. Having BEEN a reserve deputy with the Salt Lake
Sheriff's office the department was over 80% LDS. The reasons are highly
complex.

======================================================================================

How can any reasonable person assume that you were quoting someone else?


Name a police force comprised of 100% LDS members. "Police force" was the
topic. There might be a couple but not in communities with less than 50%
LDS populations but I'm listening.



*I* said "predominantly."


I don't see that word in your post.




Okay go back in it. I actually said "disproportionately" However that line
of 100% LDS was a quote from somebody else I screwed up. How many times must
I say that? When I replied to the message I accidentally folded it into my
reply. Granted it is MY screwup. So toss bricks at me for THAT.


I can't find the quote you're referring to but I'll drop it. Done.
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom

.






User: "human"

Title: Utah Crosses 13 Dec 2005 03:22:48 PM
http://www.komotv.com/stories/40711.htm
Ken Schram Commentary: Another Atheist Cross To Bear December 12, 2005

By Ken Schram
SEATTLE - I think it must be the season.
Perhaps inspired by having heard one too many "God Rest Ye Merry
Gentlemen" type songs on the radio, atheists have found yet another nit to
pick.
Earlier this month, American Atheists Incorporated filed a lawsuit to
remove steel crosses used to memorialize Utah Highway Patrol officers
that've died in the line of duty.
Standing about 12 feet high, the crosses have the troopers name engraved
on them, along with the insignia of the Utah State Patrol.
There are 14 of these crosses, all of them placed near the spot where the
officers lost their lives.
American Atheists Inc. say the crosses are a clear violation of the U.
S. constitution, and want them gone.
I can't help but wonder what's next.
Maybe stripping crosses, Jewish Stars, Star and Crescent - any and all
religious symbols - from graves at Arlington National Cemetery?
How about a lawsuit to prohibit any elected official from saying "God
Bless You" when someone sneezes, though I'd be willing to bet that
"*****" will be able to stay as an off-color expletive that atheists
don't care about deleting.
Come to think of it, I'm surprised these same atheist nimrods haven't gone
to court objecting to the 25th of December being set aside as a paid
national holiday.
All I can say is if they make a run at that, God help them.
Want to share your thoughts with Ken Schram? You can e-mail him at
kenschram@komo4news.com
.
User: "human"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 13 Dec 2005 03:26:32 PM

http://www.komotv.com/stories/40711.htm
Ken Schram Commentary: Another Atheist Cross To Bear December 12, 2005
By Ken Schram
SEATTLE - I think it must be the season.

The following is Bart Meltzer's letter to Ken Schram, KOMO 4 news
commentator, Seattle:
Dear Ken,
It's sad that you refuse to see past the end of your nose to the real
issue here. Or are you ignoring it on purpose? You and many others in the
media have made a good job of ignoring what really is at stake.
All you can see is the misperception that American Atheists doesn't care
about the sacrifices made by these officers. Nothing can be further from
the truth.
The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote the
Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the line of
duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's death
to promote religion (or anything else for personal self fulfillment or
benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting them.
Will anyone whizzing by these Christian icons even be able to read the
names of the troopers? ost likely not. They'll just see the cross which
is the intention. This is about government officials abusing their
governmental authority and funding to promote their personal religious
beliefs and using the deaths of fallen officers as an excuse to do it.
There are thousands of LEGAL ways to honor troopers or anyone else for
that matter. But this is about religion so people feel that they're above
the law.
We're wrong you say? This is about honoring the fallen troopers?
That's a croc of dung.
Why are these crosses limited to honoring troopers that have been killed
on the highway? How about if they were killed in a much less conspicuous
or even a seedy place? How about placing these crosses on back roads or
other venues like ally ways? Because no would see them that's why. So
only troopers killed in high traffic areas get honored? This is not about
honoring anyone, this is about product placement.
And why should we limit it to troopers recently killed? What is the time
line for earning a cross after death? We could go back to the first
troopers. And why limit it to just troopers? How about County, City, and
federal officers? Why limit it to officers? We can honor firefighters,
paramedics. We could include the entire population.
What if someone is killed in a restaurant or mall? We could have crosses
in every possible venue that someone gets killed. We could eliminate
cemeteries and just bury the bodies right on the spot. We can turn our
country into one big cemetery. Religious icons can liter the horizon.
Everywhere we look we can have someone's religious belief shoved in our
faces multiple times every day. And let's not limit it to just
Christians. We can include Jewish troopers, Muslim, Atheist, Wicca,
Satanists, maybe even Branch Davidians. There's tens of thousands of
Fairytales. Pick your favorite. Maybe they can even erect a huge
pentagram right in your front yard to honor a fallen officer who was a
Satanist.
Whoaaaaa..... Let's step on the brakes here. Are there any roadside
memorials that represent any of these other religions? One fairytale is
as good as any other isn't it? Apparently it isn't. There are no other
types of religious memorials on highways. No Jewish Stars. No
Pentagrams. Nothing other than crosses. Crosses, crosses, crosses.
Is that any surprise? Not to me it's not. The primary goal of
Christianity since it's invention 2000 years ago is to convert everyone on
the planet into Christians. From the Crusades to the inquisition to the
Holocaust, the primary goal of Christianity is to spread. The track record
is written in blood.
Maybe if certain religious government officials upheld the Constitution
instead of violating it to promote their monotheistic fairytale, we
wouldn't have to take these actions. And it is a fairytale Ken. A very
fragile one. That's why it needs the government to support it. Religion
wouldn't survive like it is with out government support.
One of the plaintiffs, Mike Rivers, is our Utah State Director. I'm his
boss for American Atheists. I encourage all of my state directors to be on
the lookout for any government officials that abuse their authority to
promote their preferred fairytale. It's the goal of American Atheists to
completely remove all religious encroachment from our government so that
all of can have equal treatment. You can believe what you want without the
government telling you you're wrong, and we can enjoy the same thing. We
will also not rest until every last tax dollar illegally given to
religious organizations is stopped.
We're tired of paying the government to prop up fragile religious
beliefs.
Nimrod? I like that one. We've been called much worse and have put up with
many physical attacks by religionists because we threaten government
support of their fragile fairytale. We'll continue to fight this illegal
activity.
Maybe when you wake up with a big pentagram or some other religious icon
placed in your front yard by the government or other entity you'll finally
figure it out. That's usually how apathetic people figure things out. When
it happens to them.
/s/ Bart Meltzer,
Director of State and Regional Operations, American Atheists, Inc.
bmeltzer@atheists.org
.
User: "human"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 15 Dec 2005 06:51:10 PM
"human" <h...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
Nope. I didn't write it. I posted it.

The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote

the Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the line
of duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's
death to promote religion (or anything else for personal self fulfillment
or benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting them.<
<<Yes it is! 100% Carol. The Christian Nazis are ONLY placing the crosses
to IMPOSE our religion on YOU!>>
Thanks for confirming that.
<<DING DONG! DING DONG! DING DONG!! >>
So, now you are with the Salvation Army?
The following is Bart Meltzer's letter to Ken Schram, KOMO 4 news
commentator, Seattle:
Dear Ken,
It's sad that you refuse to see past the end of your nose to the real
issue here. Or are you ignoring it on purpose? You and many others in the
media have made a good job of ignoring what really is at stake.
All you can see is the misperception that American Atheists doesn't care
about the sacrifices made by these officers. Nothing can be further from
the truth.
The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote the
Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the line of
duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's death
to promote religion (or anything else for personal self fulfillment or
benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting them.
Will anyone whizzing by these Christian icons even be able to read the
names of the troopers? ost likely not. They'll just see the cross which
is the intention. This is about government officials abusing their
governmental authority and funding to promote their personal religious
beliefs and using the deaths of fallen officers as an excuse to do it.
There are thousands of LEGAL ways to honor troopers or anyone else for
that matter. But this is about religion so people feel that they're above
the law.
We're wrong you say? This is about honoring the fallen troopers?
That's a croc of dung.
Why are these crosses limited to honoring troopers that have been killed
on the highway? How about if they were killed in a much less conspicuous
or even a seedy place? How about placing these crosses on back roads or
other venues like ally ways? Because no would see them that's why. So
only troopers killed in high traffic areas get honored? This is not about
honoring anyone, this is about product placement.
And why should we limit it to troopers recently killed? What is the time
line for earning a cross after death? We could go back to the first
troopers. And why limit it to just troopers? How about County, City, and
federal officers? Why limit it to officers? We can honor firefighters,
paramedics. We could include the entire population.
What if someone is killed in a restaurant or mall? We could have crosses
in every possible venue that someone gets killed. We could eliminate
cemeteries and just bury the bodies right on the spot. We can turn our
country into one big cemetery. Religious icons can liter the horizon.
Everywhere we look we can have someone's religious belief shoved in our
faces multiple times every day. And let's not limit it to just
Christians. We can include Jewish troopers, Muslim, Atheist, Wicca,
Satanists, maybe even Branch Davidians. There's tens of thousands of
Fairytales. Pick your favorite. Maybe they can even erect a huge
pentagram right in your front yard to honor a fallen officer who was a
Satanist.
Whoaaaaa..... Let's step on the brakes here. Are there any roadside
memorials that represent any of these other religions? One fairytale is
as good as any other isn't it? Apparently it isn't. There are no other
types of religious memorials on highways. No Jewish Stars. No
Pentagrams. Nothing other than crosses. Crosses, crosses, crosses.
Is that any surprise? Not to me it's not. The primary goal of
Christianity since it's invention 2000 years ago is to convert everyone on
the planet into Christians. From the Crusades to the inquisition to the
Holocaust, the primary goal of Christianity is to spread. The track record
is written in blood.
Maybe if certain religious government officials upheld the Constitution
instead of violating it to promote their monotheistic fairytale, we
wouldn't have to take these actions. And it is a fairytale Ken. A very
fragile one. That's why it needs the government to support it. Religion
wouldn't survive like it is with out government support.
One of the plaintiffs, Mike Rivers, is our Utah State Director. I'm his
boss for American Atheists. I encourage all of my state directors to be on
the lookout for any government officials that abuse their authority to
promote their preferred fairytale. It's the goal of American Atheists to
completely remove all religious encroachment from our government so that
all of can have equal treatment. You can believe what you want without the
government telling you you're wrong, and we can enjoy the same thing. We
will also not rest until every last tax dollar illegally given to
religious organizations is stopped.
We're tired of paying the government to prop up fragile religious
beliefs.
Nimrod? I like that one. We've been called much worse and have put up with
many physical attacks by religionists because we threaten government
support of their fragile fairytale. We'll continue to fight this illegal
activity.
Maybe when you wake up with a big pentagram or some other religious icon
placed in your front yard by the government or other entity you'll finally
figure it out. That's usually how apathetic people figure things out. When
it happens to them.
/s/ Bart Meltzer,
Director of State and Regional Operations, American Atheists, Inc.
bmelt...@atheists.org
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.
User: "KRP"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 16 Dec 2005 07:36:30 AM
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051215184847.25548A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote

the Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the line
of duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's
death to promote religion (or anything else for personal self fulfillment
or benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting them.<
<<Yes it is! 100% Carol. The Christian Nazis are ONLY placing the crosses
to IMPOSE our religion on YOU!>>
Thanks for confirming that.

They held a meeting Carol That is theior ONLY purpose. To IMPOSE by
FORCE the Christiuan religion on you, To MAKE you look at the symbols until
you repent all your wicked ways and come to JEEEEZZZZUUUUUUZZZZ!!

<<DING DONG! DING DONG! DING DONG!! >>
So, now you are with the Salvation Army?

Nope but LOVE those folks. Saints in my book.

The following is Bart Meltzer's letter to Ken Schram, KOMO 4 news
commentator, Seattle:
Dear Ken,

It's sad that you refuse to see past the end of your nose to the real
issue here. Or are you ignoring it on purpose? You and many others in the
media have made a good job of ignoring what really is at stake.
All you can see is the misperception that American Atheists doesn't care
about the sacrifices made by these officers. Nothing can be further from
the truth.

<Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>

The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote the
Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the line of
duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's death
to promote religion (or anything else for personal self fulfillment or
benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting them.

*****!!

Will anyone whizzing by these Christian icons even be able to read the
names of the troopers? ost likely not. They'll just see the cross which
is the intention. This is about government officials abusing their
governmental authority and funding to promote their personal religious
beliefs and using the deaths of fallen officers as an excuse to do it.
There are thousands of LEGAL ways to honor troopers or anyone else for
that matter. But this is about religion so people feel that they're above
the law.

It isn't about people whizzing by at 200 MPH. It's about the FAMILIES of
the fallen victims.

We're wrong you say? This is about honoring the fallen troopers? That's a
croc of dung.

That is also NOT for an ***** to decide by the dead trooper's family!!!

Why are these crosses limited to honoring troopers that have been killed
on the highway? How about if they were killed in a much less conspicuous
or even a seedy place? How about placing these crosses on back roads or
other venues like ally ways? Because no would see them that's why. So
only troopers killed in high traffic areas get honored? This is not about
honoring anyone, this is about product placement.

Here is a CLUE for the ATheist MORONS.... See IF you can get it. The
Utah State HIGHWAY patrol does NOT generally patrol ALLEYS!!!

And why should we limit it to troopers recently killed? What is the time
line for earning a cross after death? We could go back to the first
troopers. And why limit it to just troopers? How about County, City, and
federal officers? Why limit it to officers? We can honor firefighters,
paramedics. We could include the entire population.
What if someone is killed in a restaurant or mall? We could have crosses
in every possible venue that someone gets killed. We could eliminate
cemeteries and just bury the bodies right on the spot. We can turn our
country into one big cemetery. Religious icons can liter the horizon.
Everywhere we look we can have someone's religious belief shoved in our
faces multiple times every day. And let's not limit it to just
Christians. We can include Jewish troopers, Muslim, Atheist, Wicca,
Satanists, maybe even Branch Davidians. There's tens of thousands of
Fairytales. Pick your favorite. Maybe they can even erect a huge
pentagram right in your front yard to honor a fallen officer who was a
Satanist.

The Utah HIGHWAY patrol usually doesn't patrol McDONALDS, although they
sometimes CAN be seen at the Krispy Kreme!!!

Whoaaaaa..... Let's step on the brakes here. Are there any roadside
memorials that represent any of these other religions? One fairytale is
as good as any other isn't it? Apparently it isn't. There are no other
types of religious memorials on highways. No Jewish Stars. No
Pentagrams. Nothing other than crosses. Crosses, crosses, crosses.

How many JEWISH troopers got Killed???????????

Is that any surprise? Not to me it's not. The primary goal of
Christianity since it's invention 2000 years ago is to convert everyone on
the planet into Christians. From the Crusades to the inquisition to the
Holocaust, the primary goal of Christianity is to spread. The track record
is written in blood.

Yes it is a PLOT by Diock Cheney and HALLIBUIRTIOn tgo FORCE yopu to
become BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS!!! PRAISEEEE DA HAWD!!! JEEZUZZ!

Maybe if certain religious government officials upheld the Constitution
instead of violating it to promote their monotheistic fairytale, we
wouldn't have to take these actions. And it is a fairytale Ken. A very
fragile one. That's why it needs the government to support it. Religion
wouldn't survive like it is with out government support.

In YOU not at all humble OPINION it is a fairy take Carol. But you
REALLY want to FCORCE me (and others) to accept that claim of yours.

One of the plaintiffs, Mike Rivers, is our Utah State Director. I'm his
boss for American Atheists. I encourage all of my state directors to be on
the lookout for any government officials that abuse their authority to
promote their preferred fairytale. It's the goal of American Atheists to
completely remove all religious encroachment from our government so that
all of can have equal treatment. You can believe what you want without the
government telling you you're wrong, and we can enjoy the same thing. We
will also not rest until every last tax dollar illegally given to
religious organizations is stopped. We're tired of paying the government
to prop up fragile religious
beliefs.

So that would then include crosses at public cemeteries, no???

Nimrod? I like that one. We've been called much worse and have put up with
many physical attacks by religionists because we threaten government
support of their fragile fairytale. We'll continue to fight this illegal
activity.
Maybe when you wake up with a big pentagram or some other religious icon
placed in your front yard by the government or other entity you'll finally
figure it out. That's usually how apathetic people figure things out. When
it happens to them.

I am not afraid of the pentagram. I am not worried about a bunch of
naked OLD women in the woods. I am not afraid of a Synagogue. Been to them
with friends, I rather LIKE the places and the people. YOU are the
HYSTERICAL one Carol..
.
User: "Percival L Mincer"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 16 Dec 2005 12:03:43 PM
Why would you people banter about with the aging cross-dressing
fairy,Kenneth Robert Pangborn, " KRP"? The idiot does not leave his
rotting down house and spends his every waking moment on the internet
playing. He's obsessive-compulsive,manic depressive and a pathological
liar ! He's a 10th grade dropout. Watch his spelling or lack
thereof.... Just ignore the fat worthless poverty queen and move on.
Percy
www.KenPangborn.ChokesOnDick.com
Keywords: trial consultant,trial consulting,dads,fathers,ken
pangborn,kenneth pangborn,florida,palm
harbor,men,abuse,incest,rape,pedophile,teens,megan
pangborn,sanciprian,peggy pangborn,jay
holland,florida,tampa,cyberstalking,dean tong,david sharp,marina
taylor,florida lawyer,florida attorney,astc,american society of trial
consultants,racism,racist,hate crime,forgery,forgeries,fraud
.



User: "KRP"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 14 Dec 2005 06:36:05 AM
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051213152439.22008B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote the
Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the line of
duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's death
to promote religion (or anything else for personal self fulfillment or
benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting them.

Yes it is! 100% Carol. The Christian Nazis are ONLY placing the crosses to
IMPOSE our religion on YOU!
DING DONG! DING DONG! DING DONG!!
.

User: "human"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 16 Dec 2005 06:19:42 PM

http://www.komotv.com/stories/40711.htm
Ken Schram Commentary: Another Atheist Cross To Bear December 12, 2005
By Ken Schram
SEATTLE - I think it must be the season.


The following is Bart Meltzer's letter to Ken Schram, KOMO 4 news
commentator, Seattle:


Dear Ken,
...
The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote

the Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the line
of duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's
death to promote religion (or anything else for personal self fulfillment
or benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting them.<<
Ken Pangborn's eloquent response:
<<*****!! >>
Shame on you for joining in this exploitation, Ken Pangborn.
----
"Religion is the MARKETING of myths and legends. BELIEVING in myths and
legends is human, but wasting so much time and money on them takes
RELIGION." --Dan C.
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.
User: "KRP"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 17 Dec 2005 08:25:37 AM
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051216181630.9562B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

http://www.komotv.com/stories/40711.htm
Ken Schram Commentary: Another Atheist Cross To Bear December 12, 2005
By Ken Schram
SEATTLE - I think it must be the season.
The following is Bart Meltzer's letter to Ken Schram, KOMO 4 news
commentator, Seattle:
Dear Ken,

...

The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote

the Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the line
of duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's
death to promote religion (or anything else for personal self fulfillment
or benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting them.<<
Ken Pangborn's eloquent response:
<<*****!! >>

Didn't require more.

Shame on you for joining in this exploitation, Ken Pangborn.

Exploitation of what? That Mr. Meltzer's comments were ***** and
vile?
.
User: "human"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 18 Dec 2005 07:18:11 PM
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Ken Pangborn KRP wrote:

"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051216181630.9562B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

http://www.komotv.com/stories/40711.htm
Ken Schram Commentary: Another Atheist Cross To Bear December 12, 2005
By Ken Schram
SEATTLE - I think it must be the season.


The following is Bart Meltzer's letter to Ken Schram, KOMO 4 news
commentator, Seattle:


Dear Ken,

...

The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote

the Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the line
of duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's
death to promote religion (or anything else for personal self fulfillment
or benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting them.<<


Ken Pangborn's eloquent response:


<<*****!! >>


Didn't require more.

Shame on you for joining in this exploitation, Ken Pangborn.

Exploitation of what?

Repeated for the reading-comprehension-impaired Ken Pangborn:
"The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote the Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the
line of duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's death to promote religion (or anything else for personal self
fulfillment or benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting
them."
<< That Mr. Meltzer's comments were ***** and vile?>>
Why does pointing out that the crosses in Utah are put in place for one
reason equal bull *****? Why is it vile to point this out?
Why does pointing out that the deaths of law enforcement officers is being
exploited equal bull *****? Why is it vile to point this out?
For Kenny: Happy Holidays
http://www.blogtelevision.net/p/Videos-Watch-a-Video___1,2,,40946.html
"Intelligent design" makes sense only if our higher power is a devious,
brutal killer. -- Margaret Wertheim
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.
User: "Jeff Strickland"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 18 Dec 2005 07:29:35 PM
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051218191205.10646B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Ken Pangborn KRP wrote:

"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051216181630.9562B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...


http://www.komotv.com/stories/40711.htm
Ken Schram Commentary: Another Atheist Cross To Bear December 12,
2005
By Ken Schram
SEATTLE - I think it must be the season.


The following is Bart Meltzer's letter to Ken Schram, KOMO 4 news
commentator, Seattle:


Dear Ken,

...

The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote

the Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the
line
of duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's
death to promote religion (or anything else for personal self
fulfillment
or benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting them.<<


Ken Pangborn's eloquent response:


<<*****!! >>


Didn't require more.


Shame on you for joining in this exploitation, Ken Pangborn.


Exploitation of what?


Repeated for the reading-comprehension-impaired Ken Pangborn:

"The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote
the Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the
line of duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses
someone's death to promote religion (or anything else for personal self
fulfillment or benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting
them."

<< That Mr. Meltzer's comments were ***** and vile?>>

Why does pointing out that the crosses in Utah are put in place for one
reason equal bull *****? Why is it vile to point this out?

Why does pointing out that the deaths of law enforcement officers is being
exploited equal bull *****? Why is it vile to point this out?

For Kenny: Happy Holidays
http://www.blogtelevision.net/p/Videos-Watch-a-Video___1,2,,40946.html

"Intelligent design" makes sense only if our higher power is a devious,
brutal killer. -- Margaret Wertheim

"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker

Crosses have been used as grave markers and memorial sites for more than
2005 years.
Merry Christmas. Idiot.
.
User: " KRP"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 19 Dec 2005 07:26:15 AM
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5rWdnXAeI_xkkTveRVn-vw@ez2.net...


"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051218191205.10646B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Ken Pangborn KRP wrote:

"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051216181630.9562B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...


http://www.komotv.com/stories/40711.htm
Ken Schram Commentary: Another Atheist Cross To Bear December 12,
2005
By Ken Schram
SEATTLE - I think it must be the season.


The following is Bart Meltzer's letter to Ken Schram, KOMO 4 news
commentator, Seattle:


Dear Ken,

...

The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to
promote

the Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the
line
of duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses someone's
death to promote religion (or anything else for personal self
fulfillment
or benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting them.<<


Ken Pangborn's eloquent response:


<<*****!! >>


Didn't require more.


Shame on you for joining in this exploitation, Ken Pangborn.


Exploitation of what?


Repeated for the reading-comprehension-impaired Ken Pangborn:

"The crosses in Utah are put in place for one reason: that's to promote
the Christian religion. The fact that an officer gave his life in the
line of duty is sadly exploited for this purpose. Anyone who uses
someone's death to promote religion (or anything else for personal self
fulfillment or benefit) should be ashamed. Shame on you for supporting
them."

<< That Mr. Meltzer's comments were ***** and vile?>>

Why does pointing out that the crosses in Utah are put in place for one
reason equal bull *****? Why is it vile to point this out?

Why does pointing out that the deaths of law enforcement officers is
being
exploited equal bull *****? Why is it vile to point this out?

For Kenny: Happy Holidays
http://www.blogtelevision.net/p/Videos-Watch-a-Video___1,2,,40946.html

"Intelligent design" makes sense only if our higher power is a devious,
brutal killer. -- Margaret Wertheim

"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker



Crosses have been used as grave markers and memorial sites for more than
2005 years.

Merry Christmas. Idiot.

BUT from the very start they were "ILLEGAL" as hell!
Right?
.

User: "human"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 18 Dec 2005 08:44:40 PM
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Jeff Strickland wrote:

Crosses have been used as grave markers and memorial sites
for more than 2005 years.

You suggest that crosses were used before the time in which your alleged
resurrected savior of choice is alleged to have lived.
I don't doubt that crosses were used that long ago.

Merry Christmas. Idiot.

My holiday greeting for you, Jeff:
http://www.blogtelevision.net/p/Videos-Watch-a-Video___1,2,,40946.html
"Religion is the MARKETING of myths and legends. BELIEVING in myths and
legends is human, but wasting so much time and money on them takes
RELIGION." --Dan C.
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.
User: "Jeff Strickland"

Title: Re: Utah Crosses 18 Dec 2005 08:49:19 PM
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051218204150.10646J-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Jeff Strickland wrote:

Crosses have been used as grave markers and memorial sites
for more than 2005 years.


You suggest that crosses were used before the time in which your alleged
resurrected savior of choice is alleged to have lived.

I don't doubt that crosses were used that long ago.

The only alleged part is if He wa