Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
"Get Off Your Lazy Omnipotent Ass And Help Us"
You don't often see something like this, from the Hartford Advocate:
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Get Off Your Lazy Omnipotent Ass And Help Us
Alabama Governor declares a pray-for-rain week for his state.The drought parching the Southeast has been particularly devastating for Alabama, whose primary industry is agriculture. So Governor Bob Riley has adopted a take-charge, proactive solution to the problem, and issued a proclamation declaring June 30 through July 7 as "Days of Prayer for Rain" week in the state. "I encourage all Alabamians to pray individually and within their houses of worship for sufficient rain," said the press release given by the governor's office.
So how did it work? The good news: last week scattered showers dropped nearly a half-inch of rain on some parts of the state. The bad news: it'll take at least 14 inches to get water levels back to normal. Theological speculation as to why the prayer week failed: Riley asked all Alabamians to pray. That means Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and probably a few Pastafarians too. So you know at least one person in the state prayed to a false and non-existent God, thus annoying the real one enough to negate any brownie points the statewide prayer vigil might otherwise have racked up.
Now, the serious bit - I'm curious how any believers in the audience feel about this sort of religious proclamation/appeal? Oh, you godless heathens can weigh in on the topic, too...
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Prayers never bring anything
I ran accross this quote here and thought it relevant to the Alabama governor's situation.
“Prayers never bring anything. . . . They may bring solace to the sap, the bigot, the ignorant, the aboriginal, and the lazy--but to the enlightened it is the same as asking Santa Claus to bring you something for Xmas.”
--W.C. Fields
The good governor seems to have misunderstood
It seems pretty clear to me that God wants there to be a drought in his state. Praying for a change demonstrates a terrible lack of faith in God's plan. I mean would you really say to the deity. "God. You, uh, know this whole drought thing? Well we here in Alabama think you've made a mistake and we'd like you to correct it as soon as possible."?
The arrogance of such a request is palpable.
Change of plans
Praying for a change in the plan is 'allowed.' In Exodus 32 (and in other places in the Old Testament), God wanted to abandon the Israelites and leave them to their fate in the desert (he wanted them destroyed) and told Moses that he would make a great nation out of his descendants instead. Moses was able to talk him out of it. Yes he did say something like, 'Not such a good idea, God.' So the governor's appeal isnt exactly without precedent within the belief system.
Just so I am clear on this
You are saying that the creator being. An extra cosmic eternal force of unknowable power and inconceivable intellect, a being who sets all the galaxies of the cosmos in place and willed the laws of physics into being was argued out of a desired course of action by some bronze age, flea bitten, semetic shepherd? And how did the author of this particular piece of literature know what this being desired? Was the creator being doing some psychiatric anger management councelling with Moses?
"You know Moses I am really really pissed off."
"Go on."
"Well these people they..." Jehovah balls up his fists. "...they.." Jehovah gets up off the leather couch amidst a tempest of flashing lightning and hammering thunder, divine wrath plainly written on his face.
"Calm down Jehovah! Please! you know this isn't good for your blood pressure." Moses gestures toward the couch. "Please, this isn't helping you. Have a seat and we can talk about a more constructive way to deal with your feelings of rage."
Hmmm. You just have to wonder.
Yes
You are saying that the creator being. An extra cosmic eternal force of unknowable power and inconceivable intellect, a being who sets all the galaxies of the cosmos in place and willed the laws of physics into being was argued out of a desired course of action by some bronze age, flea bitten, semetic shepherd?
In a word, Yes. Just telling you how the story in Exodus 32 went, Thameron. There is precedent for some guy asking the "extra cosmic eternal force of unknowable power and inconceivable intellect, a being who sets all the galaxies of the cosmos in place and willed the laws of physics into being" to change his mind. There must be a lesson in there somewhere. Maybe the lesson is: 'Wouldnt hurt to try.'
And how did the author of this particular piece of literature know what this being desired?
Maybe he didnt know what was being desired, and maybe it's irrelevant and is not the point of the story. Maybe he was just recounting the story as it came to him with no clue at all to what was being desired. Reportage. But you have to hand it to Moses. If it were Thameron in the story, I dont think he wouldnt even have tried because he would think it was mighty arrogant to try to talk God out of things, dont you think?
It's all perfect design.
Perzactly, Thameron - it's a perfect design, we just don't understand it. See, droughts like that are necessary, in order that the termite population in the south stay in God-designed homeostasis...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Adequacy
The design of the cosmos is clearly not perfect. [As an aside, if it were, there would be deep error throughout the Bible.] It is an adequate design, ramified by a host of other factors, all of which I, at least, do not confess to knowing.
Your tack is like arguing that a Tandy TSR80 wasn't perfect, and so had to have had no designer. Guess I would have to demur from such logic....
-Col.
"Adequately intelligent"
Well, Col., I must be like Thameron, and only adequately intelligent, capable of only small witticisms, and only able to balance so many imperfect designs in my mind at once. I clearly cannot understand the sublime beauty and subtlety of the Creator's imperfect design, and how that therefore makes the bible inerrant. Care to enlighten me?
[/snark]
OK, this kind of argument does not become you, Col. You've been a pretty stand-up guy so far. Moreso than most who come here to do battle with us godless heathens.
I can respect the intelligent believer. But when you start to get on a high horse and denigrate the legitimate objections presented by those of us who do not see the same seemless perfection (even when it is, um, imperfect by design), you lower youself, sir. You lower yourself to the level of the ravin' fundie who claims biblical inerrancy, because the local Shaman told him so.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Not in the crosshairs
I have no plans to do battle. Were that the case, I could just toss back the grenades. I don't have any real plans to just be an ostrich, either, or I could just go stick my head in the sand of (name your flavor) website and talk to myself. But I have enjoyed (do enjoy) some of the interaction we've had. I like it most, of course, when it doesn't devolve into something akin to Robin Williams' portrayal of Peter Pan spitting verbiage at his young rival.
Could there be any reason, at the very least potentially, that God would allow there to be imperfections in this cosmos? That question is now considered a dead one, in favor of the theists. For well over 15 years, the so-called "problem of evil" (which is akin to the imperfection tack) has been declared solved, with there being no necessary discrepancy between God's attributes and this creation. This is not my opinion; in high-end debates with W. L. Craig (and I suppose others), the atheist philosophers freely admit this and avow it openly. They've given it up! Therefore, a cosmos that is designed, though short of "heaven" (the perfect design you're demanding) designed still is.
There is a bit of history here, as well. It used be argued by atheists that the universe is too wasteful to be created. Why would God put stars 30 billion light-years away? Now, of course, that has turned back in the opposite direction, because of the fact that those stars are now know to be needed for life to be anywhere, including here. Teleological, not wasteful. I would not venture to say that every single perceived imperfection may one day turn out to be necessary, but many will. The remainder I chalk up to the natural processes (micro-evolution, et al.) that God has also worked into this created order.
Omnipotence for the theist does not mean that God can do anything. He can't do spherical cubes or the famous boulder/lift it paradox. God cannot do the absurd or that which has no meaning. So if this cosmos has as part of its plan moral free agency, and is to sustain itself through that for some extended time, perceived imperfection begins to dissolve into simply the vehicle to get to the cosmos you're demanding.
So. To the more difficult question. Are you really going to conclude that the laptop in the cave is undesigned, simply because it only has one USB port? This is the real heart of the problem.
-Col.
Best Laid plans
Grenades like...
Your high horse is a little shaky col. That's a pretty explosive grenade that you are too good to toss.
Well that is a relief, and what pray tell is that solution? Let's see if I remember this right. If there is evil its your fault and if its good then god is responsible right? I am so glad that there is a fellow primate here to tell me what the creator being (who let's remember is so powerful that it can create an entire universe without breaking a sweat and who's touch is so delicate that it can move the base pairs around on the strands of DNA with deliberate and knowledgeable intent) can and cannot do.
Given up you say? Well damn, I didn't get the notice. Maybe I should check my mail more often but wait a moment.
That's just a little vague. Name them. Are Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins among them, because from what I read they didn't get the notice either. I have to say though that the 'just muddlin' through' deity is a new one on me. The slipshod god. Amazing.
It isn't?!
The thought that the creator being (who, you will recall, is capable of creating and possibly maintaining billions and billions of galaxies and simultaneously has the precise touch to alter the DNA of Earth's creatures at will) makes mistakes is somewhat sobering. I wonder if we humans were in fact one of the creator being's errors. Maybe the creator being looked at us, shrugged, said "good enough" and moved on. Gives you a warm feeling inside doesn't it?
What if...
...they werent errors?
Another what-if: What if our defects are 'factory defects' and not design defects?
So you'd blame the parents
the gestation and the upbringing they gave the child rather than the designer? I suppose all of the genetic defects that occur in humans are due to 'factory' (i.e. mother) defects rather than design? I'll let you be the one to tell your mother that all of your flaws are her fault. She can take solace though in that all of her flaws are actually her mothers fault... and so tracing back we get to the first mother eve and everything is her fault except that she did not create herself according to the mythology, Jehovah did. So once more the ultimate responsibility falls to the deity.
Given that the omniscient creator being knows and sets the path of each and every particle in our entire universe (and that is a lot of particles) there is no such thing as 'error'. An error is an unintended consequence. Creatures with perfect knowledge of the future and the absolute power to control each and every movement cannot make 'errors'. An error is an unintended consequence. In a universe created by an omniscient, omnipotent being there are no unintended consequences, everything is as it was intended to be by the being who has the power to make it so.
The factory
Whoa-whoa-whoa there, sir! Easy. I aint blamin' my momma.
The factory I was talking about is the cosmos, the machine that this designer (Im a theist) built--nature itself: the machine that created us through natural processes. And since you brought up the omniscient creator--Hank was right. Bring religion into a discussion and it sucks everything in--according to the Christian theology, the universe itself experienced a fall at the fall of man. So even though the design is good on paper, the factory sometimes comes up with the occasional dud.
An error is an unintended consequence.
Then it isnt 'error' I was talking about. How about planned obsolescence like they do with computer operating systems? Or how about 'this year's model' replaced by a new and improved one like car makers make cars knowing fully well that theyll make a newer model next year as technology and the needs and desired of the public change?
Given that the omniscient creator being knows and sets the path of each and every particle in our entire universe...Creatures with perfect knowledge of the future and the absolute power to control each and every movement...
You subscribe to an idea of God, sir, that I dont exactly subscribe to. Sets the path of each and every particle? Perhaps he could do that. But does the fact that he can do that necessarily mean he does do that? As for 'perfect knowledge of the future' do you mean this God whom you speak about has fixed the future? That we dont really have free will? We're puppets?
In a universe created by an omniscient, omnipotent being there are no unintended consequences, everything is as it was intended to be by the being who has the power to make it so.
And that is the context with which I asked my what-ifs. When you said "The thought that the creator being (who, you will recall, is capable of creating and possibly maintaining billions and billions of galaxies and simultaneously has the precise touch to alter the DNA of Earth's creatures at will) makes mistakes is somewhat sobering."
What if they werent mistakes?
A relief to your mother no doubt
You mean the cosmos that was intelligently designed and intelligently created by the supremely intelligent creator being? That cosmos?
The supremely intelligent creator being put the laws in place and the material that would obey those laws. So what is this 'nature' you are speaking of? Do you mean something outside of the supremely intelligently designed materials or the supremely intelligently designed laws? Because you know there is nothing else as far as we are concerned.
Well at risk of the colonel's wrath I must say that I didn't realize that the deity came by subscription, but that aside if the universe we live in was created and designed then our perceptions mean little, pretty much nothing in fact. What can a bacterium know about the life of the scientist looking at it through the lens of the microscope? Our position in this would be much much less than even that.
Well if you knew exactly what your actions would cause then you wouldn't have much choice about it. Unless you are going to say that there are things which the creator being does not know. But I am thinking that if you can design, implement and alter DNA on a molecular level then you pretty much have to know what you are doing.
How do you know you aren't? Did one of the other puppets tell you? Even if you received a direct and unequivocal communication from the creator being itself it would mean nothing because it could easily lie to you. How could we possibly have free will when our DNA was designed by somebody else? Our DNA constrains the choices that we make. How many seven foot tall jockeys do you see?
My point exactly. The drought is not a mistake. It was either the result of unguided natural forces bereft of intent, or it was intended, but the mistake of a neglectful or blundering god? That seems unlikely.
Options
You mean the cosmos that was intelligently designed and intelligently created by the supremely intelligent creator being? That cosmos?
Yes that one.
The supremely intelligent creator being put the laws in place and the material that would obey those laws. So what is this 'nature' you are speaking of? Do you mean something outside of the supremely intelligently designed materials or the supremely intelligently designed laws?
Nature is the sum total of the materials and laws. Outside of that is supernature. There is such a thing in my worldview.
Because you know there is nothing else as far as we are concerned.
Yes, yes, I am aware of that. Oh I get it. You think Im trying to convince you otherwise. You can relax. Im doing nothing of the sort. Im just giving you the view from the other side, which is not as monolithic as you might think it is.
...if the universe we live in was created and designed then our perceptions mean little, pretty much nothing in fact. What can a bacterium know about the life of the scientist looking at it through the lens of the microscope? Our position in this would be much much less than even that.
I must confess I dont get this. Why would our perceptions mean little? And perceptions about what?
Well if you knew exactly what your actions would cause then you wouldn't have much choice about it. Unless you are going to say that there are things which the creator being does not know. But I am thinking that if you can design, implement and alter DNA on a molecular level then you pretty much have to know what you are doing.
The future isnt fixed. It is contingent upon the actions of beings with their own will. The creator being knows some things as certainty, as for example I know what would happen if I drop an egg on the floor. That's just physics. When it comes to whole populations of people with individual wills, or indeed a single individual with a free will, then the knowledge isnt one of certainty, but one of possibility. I guess you could compare the future to quantum mechanics. You won't know what a subatomic particle would do for certain, but you know the odds of it doing A or doing B. Until you make the observation, the particle doing A, B, or none of the above is a possibility.
As for designing, implementing, and altering DNA, really how tough could it be? It's a very complex computer code, but it's within our realm of experience (or at least imagination) to design, implement, and alter it as we would any code. And yes, you have to know what youre doing.
How do you know [we] aren't [puppets]? How could we possibly have free will when our DNA was designed by somebody else? Our DNA constrains the choices that we make. How many seven foot tall jockeys do you see?
I fail to see how being designed by somebody else precludes free will. It won't preclude free will if free will is part of the design parameters. As for the seven-foot tall jockeys, you are equivocating. Of course our DNA doesnt allow us to fly no matter how badly we wish to do so. But it doesnt preclude a 7 foot tall person to want to ride horses for a living.
My point exactly. The drought is not a mistake. It was either the result of unguided natural forces bereft of intent, or it was intended, but the mistake of a neglectful or blundering god? That seems unlikely.
Here we agree. Our difference is one of paradigm. For you, item A (it was natural) is the only option and item B (it was intended) isnt even possible. For me, both A and B are possible.
Please spay and neuter your future
How do you know the future isn't fixed? What reliable indicators would there be to show that it was or was not? And if the future is not fixed as you say then that would mean that prophesy would not be possible (I have no idea if you believe in prophesy or not, but having an unknown future would preclude it).
You are quite right. I wont know and I would go so far as to surmise that you wont know what our particle will do either, but a being with the power and supreme intelligence to create a universe? Well that would be a different story. Are you postulating that the creator being is somehow bound by the laws of probability and physics which it created?
The point of my bacterium analogy was only this. The human scientist's experience of the universe is well beyond the perceptions of the bacterium, which if it was gifted with sentience might know that something was looking at it, but would never get a clear idea of what that something was. It would never know that the scientist lived in a red house, was married, had a dog and enjoyed watching sports for example. Such things would be well beyond its abilities, and so it would be with us and a being capable of creating a universe. It is difficult for people to even envision the number of stars in our galaxy let alone the number of galaxies in the universe, let alone the stars in each of those and the planets circling them. Any being which could hold that kind of vastness in its mind all at once (to say nothing of being able to change it on a molecular level) would be as I said, well beyond our own abilities as human perceptions are beyond the perceptions of the bacterium.
If your definition of free will is that we get to wander around inside the cage that was made for us then I suppose that we might have free will, but again there is no guarantee. If you postulate that the creator being interfered at the moment of the universe's creation and interfered again at the moment of human creation then you really do need to ask 'at what other times did the creator being interfere?' Free will is about choices. If the creator deity is giving you choices that you would not otherwise have had or removing choices that you might otherwise have had then that is interference in free will. What the people of Alabama are asking for is for god to interfere and give them a choice they don't presently have. They are asking for a free will intervention.
What future?
How do you know the future isn't fixed? What reliable indicators would there be to show that it was or was not?
The same way you know it is fixed. (Im assuming you think it is fixed based on your line of questioning. Please correct me if Im wrong.) Seriously, I 'know' the future isnt fixed because it doesnt exist. If it does, where is it? Can anyone show it to me?
And if the future is not fixed as you say then that would mean that prophesy would not be possible (I have no idea if you believe in prophesy or not, but having an unknown future would preclude it).
Let me illustrate how I understand prophecy: Suppose I announce at 10:00am Philippine Standard Time, that at exactly 3:00 pm, Im going to get up and cluck like a chicken. Three o'clock comes and I get up and go buk-buk-bukaa-a-aak. What I did at 10:00 am was predict the future. I prophesied. And sure enough, I made it come to pass at 3 pm. It was in my power to make it come to pass. Some prophecies in the Christian bible are like that. Others are contingent: 'IF you do this, this will happen to you as a consequence. Your call.' In other words, the outcome isnt fixed.
You are quite right. I wont know and I would go so far as to surmise that you wont know what our particle will do either, but a being with the power and supreme intelligence to create a universe?...Are you postulating that the creator being is somehow bound by the laws of probability and physics which it created?
Not bound. But that's how the creator being designed nature: a universe of possibilities and certainties. He knows some things as certain because they are certain. He knows some things as possibilities because that's all those things are. What our subatomic particle would do is a possibility because that's how it was made by the creator being.
The point of my bacterium analogy was only this...
I totally agree with your bacterium analogy. All we have is the power of reason within our own paradigms. My paradigm includes the supernatural and Im merely trying to make sense of it using reason, but Im just a bacterium in this vastness. But, as the Moses story showed, it wouldnt hurt to ask and reason with the creator being.
If you postulate that the creator being interfered at the moment of the universe's creation and interfered again at the moment of human creation then you really do need to ask 'at what other times did the creator being interfere?' Free will is about choices. If the creator deity is giving you choices that you would not otherwise have had or removing choices that you might otherwise have had then that is interference in free will.
These are very good points to ponder. I accept that the creator being does interfere sometimes when he wants to do something, and at those instances, he has to take some of our choices away or give us choices we didnt have. In those instances, then it is his will that wins. However, I believe most times he just leaves things alone. If he designed us with reason and access to the moral laws via our conscience, then I figure he wants us to use these. Alas, for most of us, we dont. That's how we've fucked up this planet.
Thanks for the comments, Thameron. If you think a wrap-up of your points is needed, please you may have the honor of getting the last word.
Last words
Well Jeg first let me tell you I appreciate both your straightforward answers and your civility. I don't really expect to convince you and doubtless you probably feel the same way. It just seems to me that any human being who claims to know the mind of the creator being is highly suspect. The creator being (as described by its believers) and we are so very different.
Humans are made of baryonic matter, Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, etc and are limited in scope. The creator being is composed of...well I don't know really except that the creator being isn't composed of matter, nor apparently of any energy which registers on our instrumentation and is not limited, even by the confines of our universe.
Humans require air, food, water and sleep (at a minimum). The creator being requires none of these things (unless someone thinks that the creator being requires sleep. I haven't heard much about that). The creator being does not feel, hungry, thirsty or tired.
Human beings experience birth, growth and death. The creator being is (according to reports) ageless, birthless and immutable and so does not know what it is like to personally grow, or die (except possibly vicariously through observation). As sexual creatures human beings mate. The creator being is not a sexual creature (despite gender language used in reference to it) does not mate (at least not within species) and thus would be unlikely to experience the emotions of passion or lust as humans do.
The human brain and the intelligence it holds is limited by the number of neural connections it can make. The intelligence of the creator being does not suffer from this limitation (or even any limitation that I know of).
If I made the claim that I knew what you were thinking or what your capabilities were you might well be dubious since there is a lot of variety among our species, but as a fellow human being with at least some of the same limitations I could make a fair guess. However nothing in our experience allows us to make similar guesses for the creator being. It is nothing like us. For example can you create even one small particle? An electron perhaps? Can you change your own DNA? How then can you even imagine what it must be like to create trillions and trillions of particles and change the DNA of millions of species with knowing intent? I could cite myriad other examples, but I think the point is made. The creator being is nothing like us. Any claims to know its thought processes, motivations or abilities are highly suspect. As for any books written by any human beings which make such claims. They are more a reflection on their authors times and prejudices than a glimpse into the mind of the infinite.
I'll second that.
What Brent said - this is a really nice piece of writing. Cheers!
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Excellent
Very, very well said Thameron. This comment was a real joy to read. Clear, thoughtful, and cogent.
Superhuman ability
Is it not within the bounds of reason that if a Superintellect (to use Einstein's words) existed, He would be smart enough to communicate on a three-pound brain's level?
-Col.
How well?
How well do you communicate with an ant, or an amoeba?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Just because
...I'm so handsome, gentlemanly, loveable and humble doesn't make me a superintellect. But thanks for the compliment. :-)
I do think a genuine Superintellect could do it many ways. But perhaps the very best way would be to ant-incarnate Himself and live among....
-Col.
Humble?
"But perhaps the very best way would be to ant-incarnate Himself and live among...."
And here we have a perfect example of a limited, mortal, corporeal being thinking he knows the best means of communication available to a extra cosmic super intellect and yet still finds the audacity to call himself 'humble'. Interesting. Anyway if the best method was to manifest among one small group of people rather than say have specieswide manifestations so that all groups of people received the communication equally then I must say I am not impressed. But let's cover the one you mention. Did Jesus (I assume that is the manifestation you are referring to) tell people what the stars were? No. Did Jesus explain the structure of the atom? No. Did Jesus explain how old the earth was or that the massive dinosaurs had come before? No. Did Jesus say how our heavier elements were star forged? No. Did Jesus tell people that the earth circled the sun? No. Nevermind teaching a man how to fish how about teaching people how to instantly cure leprosy?! Did he reveal any scientific truth not known to the people of his day? Nope. He said basically 'be nice to each other'. A fine message but not exactly revolutionary as one might expect of a supreme intellect. One might have expected a supreme intellect to supply information on how we might visit the rest of its creation. Now that would have been a revelation! But 'be nice to each other'? Heh. Rodney King said much the same thing. It would have been utterly trivial for the supreme intellect to reveal a scientific truth that could later have been proven. If the best that the supreme intelligence could do was a itinerant Jew wandering around the desert saying 'be nice to each other' until he riled up the authorities to the point where they killed him I'd say that's a fairly pathetic effort.
there oughta be a law
Perhaps the governor should have urged the state legislature to pass a law requiring God to send the needed amount of rain, at a rate that would not cause too much flooding.
Political pandering
Politicians, especially in the South, love to take every opportunity they can to show what great people of faith they are, because, after all, if you don't believe we die because a talking snake convinced a naked woman to eat fruit from a magic tree, how could you possibly be qualified to hold public office?
Subtext
He didnt have to make it an official proclamation by the office of the governor. Church and State thing. If he merely said, "I encourage all Alabamians to pray individually and within their houses of worship for sufficient rain" without the proclamation, then I dont see anything wrong with it even though he used 'all Alabamans' since I think 'all religious Alabamans' is the subtext.
Bush on Weather
A few months back President Bush toured parts of Kansas that were devastated by a recent tornado. There was one awkward moment, when the President looked at the tornado damage and said, 'Don't worry, we're going to get whoever did this.'"
I'm sure...
...that's apocryphal, but damn it's funny.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.