Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
A serious poll, this time - what do you believe in?
Christianity in whatever form 28%
Judaism 0%
Muslim 0%
Eastern Asian (Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, etc.) 3%
Continental/Indian Asian (Jainism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc.) 0%
A "Pagan" (*coughBULLSHITcough*) religion 0%
Some form of personal belief that does not fall under any religion 13%
Atheism 21%
None/Apathetic Agnostic 28%
Other (if other, please specify in comments below) 3%

Votes: 52

 A thought on Christianity.

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Sep 06, 2002
Wouldn't removing the Old Testament from the teachings clear up a lot of the "problems" (and I say that for lack of a better word) with Christianity?

More diaries by Illiterate Bum
I should've known better...
Improving Adequacy
Kerry/McCain in 2004?
Seems like it would be the easiest way to get these fanatical Atheists to shut up (I always believed that a true atheist just doesn't care, and wouldn't bother trying to refute the whatevers of whatever belief system). Also, it seems as if it would help clear the muddy waters surrounding the correct interpretation of the Bible, and I believe it would make the jobs of various missionary/clergy/pastor types a bit easier.

It's a simple thought, really, and probably full of holes. I haven't really given it much consideration. I am no theologian by any means, so I leave it in the hands of the Adequate to point out all the flaws that are most likely inherent in this proposal.

Oh, a small side note regarding the poll: all satanists should click Christianity. Also, if people could answer honestly, that'd be great. I'm genuinely curious here.

Also, I'm quite aware that the poll is inherently flawed (especially in regard to the Asiatic religions) but space considerations require that I limit it as such. If an editor has a better idea, please feel free to change it.


everyone is an athiest (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 07:04:22 AM PST
Please see the following quote:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts

Now, regarding your statement:

"Also, it seems as if it would help clear the muddy waters surrounding the correct interpretation of the Bible......"

A "correct interpretation of the bible"? Which interpretation? King James? Which language? Do you know how many words in Hebrew are interchageable? For example, the Hebrew words for wine and grape juice are interchangeable.....which word is chosen for translation greatly effects the meaning!

Yes (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Right Hand Man on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 07:45:20 AM PST
Sure, let us all quibble over minor, meaningless details. Let us worry ourselves over whether a word means grape juice or wine. Let us just throw the whole thing out because we can't figure that one out.

You damn well know what the bible prescribes for you. You know what God intends. You can pretend you don't, or that you are confused, so that you can engage in all sorts of sin, and leftistism, but God is watching. He will judge you when your times comes and all of your arguments over the definition of words and translations will not sway Him.

I suspect that neither you nor the Mr. Roberts you quote has ever held a rattlesnake at arm's length, looked it square in the eyes, and felt no fear because you had faith in the Word of God and the protection He provides. Do that, and you will quickly discover which monkey gods to leave behind and which One to follow.

"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

christ compels you! (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 08:50:32 AM PST
you totally missed my point.........there is more then ONE instance of translation problems from Hebrew to English..........

You presume that I believe in a guilt free society. One of the common fallacies generated by christian faith. In fact, I am an Objectivist and I hold myself to higher standards then the christians who have protected the pedophiles they claim are scholars.......

Held a rattlesnake at arm's length? How about facing certain death while under fire from an unseen enemy while waiting for tatical air command? Ever done that? Never held a rattlesnake, but had to deal with pythons, scorpions, sharks and other deadly spicies in the jungle........god never crossed my mind.....only my training and knowledge.....

May whatever god you invented forgive you!

Points (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Right Hand Man on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 09:16:07 AM PST
Have I ever taken fire? Yes, scads, and given just as much back, so you shouldn't presume that I haven't. Combat is another matter entirely.

Indeed I suspect that you have never faced certain death, otherwise you would not be available to post your comments. It may be that you have faced a dangerous situation and lived through it, despite your lack of religion. I lived through several of them before I became a Christian. This does not constitute proof that of anything, whereas the fact that I and many others have lived through snake bites that would normally kill a man holds considerable sway in my mind.

"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Jesus k-mart (1.00 / 2) (#9)
by djhojo on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 09:23:12 AM PST through a snake bite proves the existance of god??? ROTFL!!!! SILLY CHRISTIAN!

You SLAY me christian!!! you are a fool!!! LOL ROTFL!!!!

may the god you invented forgive you!

A snake bite... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by jvance on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 11:49:18 AM PST not certain death. Or is Steve Irwin part of your congregation? I would have more respect for your "test of faith" if it involved Inland Taipan snakes, or a loaded revolver pressed to your temple.
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Pardon (none / 0) (#13)
by Right Hand Man on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 12:36:41 PM PST
At what point did I make the claim that snake bites were certain death? You and I may be reading different translations of the text, I do not know.

The death rate for untreated Timber Rattlesnake bites, which are the type I am familiar with, is quite high if we are to believe the records kept prior to the introduction of antivenin. I know of a number of churches where many dozen bites have occurred, yet I know of only one death among the congregations.

We do not see many of you heretical tough guys in my church. When it comes time to toss around a few snakes your confidence in the statistical probability of surviving a bite without the aid of modern medication seems to fade.

"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Beekeepers... (none / 0) (#19)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 03:20:46 PM PST
...typically have higher resistance against bee venom.

The amount of venom injected during a bite varies considerably with the style of bite and the state of the snake. By exposition to sublethal doses of snake venom it can be possible to raise one's tolerance. The individuals too sensitive to the venom are the ones whose faith was too weak.

Ah! It's you! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 11:22:18 PM PST
Your little quote at the end gave you away.

You obviously don't understand Objectivism, do you? The philosophy is inherently flawed, and by its very nature is morally inferior to Christianity.

And why do you hate people so much? I don't understand this anti-social bent that you have, and why you feel this need to lump certain groups of people together to fit your little narrow-minded viewpoint. All christians are not Catholics, and there are more people that believe in Christianity than the small number of Catholic priests and their cover-up buddies. I bet you call all asian people "dem Chinese" and believe that all african-americans look alike too.

And goddammit, look Mr. Warhero Scholar - during the cold, cold days of World War II, God was the only thing keeping me and my buddies alive! God helped me avoid all those sharks that were swimming around in the forest! God protected me from those deadly, heathen spices! Man, I remember Andy... Andy was like a brother to me. But he didn't believe in God. And what happened? Kaboom! His face is plastered all over my boots. God protected me from the nazis, and helped me achieve my goal of becoming emperor of the world. God helped me get my PhDs in theology and neuro-biology. God helped me invent the Twinkie.

Christ. Go away. Your mad skllz in Counter-Strike do not mean you have real-life military credentials, and your anti-social nature is quite unpleasant. Don't you have some black mascara to reapply, or something?

All my love - IB

another brainwashed christian (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 08:58:33 AM PST
yap yap yap yap.............hey christian.....why don't you get the priests to stop molesting children before you worry about anyone else?

why did the christians support the nazi's in WWII?

why is christianity the only faith that seeks to make a profit of its belief system?

why do christians abhore homosexuality when Noah had anal sex with his son Ham?

get a life and your kind are responsible for most of the genocide and poverty on this planet! You claim to be helping the world but all you do is keep those who do not follow your belief system in subjegation.

Another brainwashed child. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 10:47:04 PM PST
Hey kiddo... I know the world can be a scary place, but this state of perpetual fear that you live in is not healthy. Why don't you worry about your own problems before worrying about someone else?

Why do you feel the need to blame a belief system for your own insecurities?

Why can't you understand the concept of "individual responsibility"?

Why are you so narrow-minded that you must place a broad number of essentially different people into arbitrary groups and give them broad, ill-informed definitions so they fit into your illogical little world?

Why are you in denial that you are, in fact, a Nazi?

You know, it's due to emotionally retarded children like you that makes the world so much more unpleasant than it has to be. If you were truly a citizen of the world, with the people's best intentions in mind, then you would immediately go out and shoot yourself. Please be humane about it, though.

Hugs and Kisses- IB

So you are an atheist, I take it. (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 11:04:21 PM PST
A form of religion if there ever was one. However, following strict textbook definitions, Mr. Roberts is an atheist because he does not believe in a god or spirituality. His opponent (I'm assuming) is a theist because he believes in a god and or spirituality. So no, we are not all atheists. Some of us, though, are idiots that like to take quotes out of context to fit whatever little idea they have in their heads at the time.

Also, by interpretation I meant the general meanings behind the bible. No matter which version it is, it all remains pretty similar in ethos. The problems start to crop up in Christianity when the New Testament teachings start to clash with the Old Testament, which leads to my little proposal. While not a problem for the faithful, it remains shaky ground for new converts and others that are clearly marginalized by some of the older teachings. So does it really matter which translation and which particular language the Bible's written in? No. Are you an ass that can't understand the written word. Yes. -IB

apathy vs agnostic (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 07:10:03 AM PST
If you think that these 2 are the same need to take basic English and philosophy courses!

I am an agnostic but I am not apathetic. Agnosticism fits in with basic idea of the scientific method.

What you take on "faith" I require proof for. So, in effect, I put MORE effort in a belief in a god then you do! And yet you qualify this as apathy....interesting.

You rely on faith, too. (4.00 / 2) (#4)
by RobotSlave on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 07:55:31 AM PST
You say that you "require proof," but I assume you have some basis for accepting one thing as "proof," but not another? If we examine this at length, we will most certainly find things that you have faith in.

Agnosticism is all too often a futile flight from faith. Regardless of your opinion of God, you can not escape from faith. If you refuse to examine your own faith, where is it leading you?

Agnosticism is, for the most part, the province of cowards.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

statistical faith versus blind faith (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 08:40:04 AM PST
There is a grand difference between the blind faith of religion and statistical faith in replicable results. If the results are not replicated or they can be explained by other means, I can change my beliefs based on EVIDENCE!

As far as examining my faith, I have a PhD in psychology, have a BA in philosophy and almost accepted an appointment to a ThD program....I have questioned plenty, thank you very much.

It is the christians who need to do more questioning instead of dismissing anything that challenges them [like the gospel of St. Thomas]

You need more then ad hominem attacks on belief systems to sway epistimologogial beliefs!

I see. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by RobotSlave on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 11:36:20 AM PST
So what you're saying is that your belief system is, in fact, based in faith.

Good to see you're bright enough to understand at least that much, college boy.

Let's examine your "agnosticism" a little more closely, then.

1. What is the minimal definition of "God" that you are willing to accept?

2. What sort of replicable evidence are you willing to accept as "proof" of such a God's existence?

I suspect you're the sort of "agnostic" who hides atheism behind an artifically narrow definition of "God" coupled with a smug certainty that no "scientific" evidence can be produced to "prove" the existence of this straw God.

Such agnostics tend to reject definitions of God that are, in fact, supported by overwhelming evidence-- as can be seen clearly in the comments attached to a certain essay.

Have at it, professor. Be sure to appeal to your credentials some more-- they're ever so impressive.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

"and a fool shall lead them" (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by djhojo on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 12:29:13 PM PST
Well....since you really don't understand what I am saying, I will dumb it down a little for you in my answers.

"1. What is the minimal definition of "God" that you are willing to accept?"

At least you ATTEMPTED to READ the essay you you are trying to trap me into a theism debate...which is a waste of to make you happy.....God must be at least 200" tall with a big white beard and a big smiliey grin. He must smell of juniper and have neatly trimmed finger and toenails.

"2. What sort of replicable evidence are you willing to accept as "proof" of such a God's existence?"

He must come to the pub and drink a pint of Guiness with me and watch football.

There is "religion" and "god" in pure numerical some of the research on quarks...particles that do not behave according to the known laws of physics.....some scientists believe they have seen the "face of god" in these particles and the particles inside them.

I simply reject the "christian" definition of god....this definition of god was alluded to in the first post.....for some reason this terribly upsets christians the most. This is due in part to the ego involvement and fear of death that most christians suffer from. They must lean on their "belief in god" to assure others that they are just and right individuals because they could not be such without "strict adhearance" to "god's laws". If you do not believe as they do, then there is no possible way to lead a "good life". As for the fear of death, they do not want to believe that when someone dies, that is it.....there is nothing left.

Now you are going to make a elementary appeal to your refrenced essay to rebuke me since you have no thoughts of your let me save you the time......if a large enough number of people believe in something it makes it true. A large amount of people believe in a god so therefore he must exist....then also does Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, aliens, and Bob Dobbs.

Sorry, but just because something is socially accepted does not make it EXIST. There are THOUGHTS and IDEAS that exist but those do not have a direct affect on reality which exists independently from them.

Now.....we can consider the Gospel of St. Thomas as proof that Christ existed, however even the church calls that document heresey! Don't you find it STRANGE that the ONE physical piece of evidence that Christ walked the planet is being DISMISSED by the organization that pressures all of society to believe in him? (Don't even bring up that Shroud of Turin garbage).

Now go drink your blood and eat your flesh and pray to the god that you created to fogive you of the sins which you also created....and good luck on that whole pedophilia thing.

Hey college boy: (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by RobotSlave on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 01:06:53 PM PST
Before you tell me to go read the essay again, or accuse me of a lack of original thought in referring to it, have a look at who wrote the piece, Skippy.

I'm not sure who the hell you're arguing with-- all that ranting and raving about Christians is completely off the deep end. It seems like it's totally incomprehensible to you that some Christians just might regard the teachings in the Bible as allegorical. Typical literalist, strictly empiricist, dogmatic fascist mindset, that. Platonic, even.

I'm sorry, but social acceptance does, in fact, make things exist. Things like "money," for example. Or "laws." Or "God," if you define it in a particular way.

I don't think you're an agnostic. I don't even think you're an atheist anymore-- you're not sophisticated enough for such things. You're merely an Anti-Christian. As such, you are as dependent on the Bible as the most frighteningly fundamentalist Christian you can imagine, if not more so.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

American or British football? (none / 0) (#18)
by gzt on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 01:22:03 PM PST
Your "quarks" "intrigue" me, Muster Mark. However, your mysticist religionist blatherings and the liberalist scientific religionisers' irrational beliefs regarding them are foolish. The subject is particle physics, not pot-smoking Ouija orgies.

Please keep them out of our serious theological discussion. Ditto with the "objectivism" and "idiocy" you espouse.


better essays (none / 0) (#14)
by djhojo on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 12:54:23 PM PST
You should also read  this,  this,  this, and  this to get a better understanding of atheism.

dear sir (none / 0) (#30)
by nathan on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 05:37:21 PM PST
Fuck off and die.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

You can't win (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by faustus on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 03:55:06 PM PST
There is no point in arguing. A theist, once backed against the wall by menacing logic, will always turn to the ace up his sleeve.

With this in mind, I propose that the ban on Godwin's Law be extended to the LSD induced ramblings of Mr. Kierkegaard. This would ensure that the theological debates we enjoy at Adequacy would never end.

--You seem to be suffering from a liberal-arts education.

You're an ass. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Illiterate Bum on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 09:33:16 PM PST
You really have poor reading comprehension skills, don't you? The poll option read "None/Apathetic Agnostic". READ: We don't know (agnostic) and we don't care (apathy). That amounts to pretty much having absolutely no religion at all, unlike certain (most) atheists that clutch at their beliefs like a security blanket.

It's a little term I acquired from a website, and I thought it was a fairly clever way to describe someone who does not prescribe to any religion at all, be it the traditional ones, science, or atheism. Admitted, I did not bother to flip through the rest of the site, and they could be moronic atheist types for all I know, but the pairing of the two words made me laugh and seemed to work quite well together to describe, say, a secular humanist.

You see, if I cared about the agnostics at all, I would have placed them on the poll. However, agnostics strike me as fence-sitting cowards that don't deserve to be heard on any serious- or hell, even deliberately satirical- dicussions on religion.

Oh, by the way, did you know that I hold PhDs in philosophy, theological studies, ethics, neurology, and bio-chemistry? I have also flown to the moon, saved the world twice over, and conquered several small countries in the name of Spain. I am currently holding down a top ranking position in the Illuminati. I have also invented twinkies.

Eyargh. Go back to home, ass-clown, and come back when your reading comprehension level rises above that of an especially dull ten-year old.

"...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

No (none / 0) (#16)
by First Incision on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 01:14:36 PM PST
Ceasing to teach the Old Testament would clear up nothing. On the contrary, it would cause more confusion.

I must assume that you have read almost none of the New Testament. There is a quote from or a reference to the Old Testament on almost every page. Jesus quotes from the Old Testament books extensively.

I am sick and tired of non-Christians and semi-Christians proposing a deprecation of the Hebrew texts just because they make the shaky-faithed uncomfortable.
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

You are correct. (none / 0) (#23)
by Illiterate Bum on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 09:59:31 PM PST
At the most, I have glanced through the New Testament. Biblical study has never really been my thing (especially considering that I do not follow any of the Judaeo-Christian religions), and this notion was just a passing thought that I figured I'd share.

So, for my sake, could you point out a few examples where it would jeopardize understanding of Christianity? The way I see it, I don't see how tossing out an anachronistic tome like the Old Testament would compromise the teaching of Christianity significantly. True, Jesus does quote extensively from it, but I do not see how this would get in the way of the meaning. If anything, it might make it easier to digest for homosexuals, women, and has the added benefit of closing the yaps of all those utterly annoying anti-christian types that are waiting to pounce on literal, often conflicting translations of certain passages ("HA CHRISTIAN! YOUR BIBLE SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT WEAR MORE THAN ONE FABRIC ON YOUR CLOTHING!!!! YOUR FAITH IS FLAWED!!!!).

"...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

this is a classic liberal fallacy (none / 0) (#29)
by nathan on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 05:35:09 PM PST
People don't turn away from religion because of a few ersatz inconsistencies in its core texts. They turn away from it because they are aware of God and hate Him with all their hearts. It bears repeating as well, at this point, that while eg gay people may be on somewhat shaky terms with Christianity, Christianity is not about establishing anyone in positions of moral superiority. Everyone is in need of repentance.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

So you're not turned away from Hindu Gods (none / 0) (#31)
by because it isnt on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 06:28:31 PM PST
nor to you hate any of them, I take it? Or do you think the Hindus are godless heathens? -- because it isn't

dear mr bcii sir, (none / 0) (#33)
by nathan on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 08:03:54 PM PST
I don't disbelieve in Hinduism because I find its theology absurd. I disbelieve in Hinduism because I find its explanation of man's role in life and the universe to be perverse and wretched.

Of course I don't hate Hindus. Are you out of your mind? I hate evil - my own as much as that of someone worshipping Kali - and while I would never say any human being was evil because of being Hindu, I would say that Hindusim is an evil religion.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Covenant (none / 0) (#32)
by First Incision on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 07:09:02 PM PST
The Old Testament is VITAL to an understanding of the New. The New Testament writers speak often of the new covenant God has made with Christians. Without the old Testament, you do not even know what this old covenant is! You do not know of the struggles of God's chosen people, the Jews. You do not know how this covenant came to be, or why it needed to be renewed. That is just one example.

You are worried about Christianity being hard to digest for some people? It is NOT supposed to be easy. Jesus made that VERY clear.

Some faiths have left the flock of the One True Roman Catholic Church and now misinterpret the Bible. This is sad, but throwing out the Old Testament is not a solution to this.
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Actually, this idea has its charm. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by tkatchev on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 01:21:33 PM PST
The problem is that to properly understand the Old Testament, you need an ability to think rationally in a historical frame of mind.

This valuable skill is almost completely gone nowadays. Most people have reverted to various forms of mythology and occultism, and trying to connect several cause-and-effect events is nigh impossible for the modern man.

Peace and much love...

Religion isn't nice. It kills. (none / 0) (#20)
by because it isnt on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 03:36:19 PM PST
I thought I'd let our friends Across the Pond know what Polly Toynbee (Queen of the Liberalists) has been saying today about Religion.

She's mostly angry that the BBC God-slot 'Thought for the day' won't broadcast secularists' views. However, she talks up a storm -- here's a little (copyright fair-use abiding) snippet:
This is about confronting religion at a time when it threatens global Armageddon. It is there in the born-again Christian fundamentalism demanded of every US politician, turning them all into "crusaders". It drives on the murderous Islamic jihadists. It makes mad the biblical land-grabbing Israeli settlers. It threatens nuclear nemesis between the Hindus and Muslims along the India-Pakistan border. It still hurls pipebombs on the Ulster streets. The Falun Gong are killed for it, extremist Sikhs die for it too. The Pope kills millions through his reckless spreading of Aids. When absolute God-given righteousness beckons, blood flows and women are in chains.
I know this is more Religion than Christianity, but can't be bothered writing another diary so soon, and it seems on-topic enough for this diary. Hurrah to the kindly editor who put PotatoError's gun debate back on the front page. -- because it isn't

Thank you. (none / 0) (#21)
by RobotSlave on Fri Sep 6th, 2002 at 05:17:24 PM PST
Of course, it isn't on the "front page," but it's the tought that counts.

Thank you again, Mr. isnt. It's nice to be appreciated.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

See how much people like you (none / 0) (#27)
by because it isnt on Sat Sep 7th, 2002 at 05:20:23 AM PST
when you do nice things instead of bad things? Ooh, look: satire! -- because it isn't

I think there's already something like this (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 8th, 2002 at 05:44:48 PM PST
After all, it's OK for a Christian to eat pork, isn't it? I don't think we can say that the OT must be abandoned, since it has value, but some things, for example ceremonial law, are only of historical worth.

The OT is part of the Bible, and as such there are right and wrong ways to read it. The need to find the correct way is what spurred on the usage of the Scientific Method so that the science of theology would function properly.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to