Ok, I'l bite. Where in 5233 does it document the + addressing?
I agree, you do have to read quite a ways into the RFC to find it, and it is hidden deep deep... wait -- Section 1. Second paragraph.
Typical uses of subaddressing might be:
o A message addressed to "ken+sieve@example.org" is delivered into a
mailbox called "sieve" belonging to the user "ken".
...which appears to be really close to the text I quoted in my original answer.
That text does not appear in RFC2822, which is where you claimed it came from.
The critical point here is that "+" is *not* a standard or part of a standard.
The critical point here is that you are wrong. The critical point after that is that what you claimed the RFC says is also wrong. There is nothing in any RFC that says that foo and foo+bar are different mailboxes and that the destination host cannot treat them as the same, only that INTERMEDIATE transports may not assume anything about them.
That means that the spam filter is following the RFC. The + address is a convention of a number of email systems but Foo+Bar@domain.com and Foo@domain.com are unrelated email addresses according to RFC2822.
BUSTED! The text you claim appears in 3.4.1 of RFC2822 does not appear therein, nor does it appear in RFC 5322. RFC5322 says:
Note: A liberal syntax for the domain portion of addr-spec is
given here. However, the domain portion contains addressing
information specified by and used in other protocols (e.g.,
[RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC1123], [RFC5321]). It is therefore
incumbent upon implementations to conform to the syntax of
addresses for the context in which they are used.
What you quoted comes from RFC5321 (SMTP protocol) para. 2.3.11, and is preceded by the following sentence:
The
standard mailbox naming convention is defined to be
"local-part@domain"; contemporary usage permits a much broader set of
applications than simple "user names".
In other words, RFC5321 explicitly says that mailboxes (the local part of the email address) are much broader in scope than simple "user names" in contemporary usage. RFC5233 documents the use of + addressing and thus makes it an RFC (proposed) standard item. And none of the RFCs specifies that foo+bar and foo must be or even should be unrelated mailboxes -- except they must be considered as such by intermediate hosts.
Again, what you quoted deals with the actions of intermediate hosts alone. It says only the destination host may assign meaning to the local part, but not that it must assign different meanings to two non-identical local parts.
What you quote from the RFC has to do with INTERMEDIATE hosts modifying or interpreting the local parts of addresses, not the use of + addresses themselves.
Unless you are maybe arguing that "MUST be interpreted and assigned semantics only by the host specified in the domain part of the address" really means that the "domain part host" is allowed to freely ignore any interpretation assigned by any RFC, since that host would be the only thing that can assign any. That would be a ridiculous interpretation, especially since that interpretation would mean there is, effectively, NO standard for the local part of an email address and it may contain anything the destination host would desire.
No, that part of the RFC deals with things like a system I ran across a very long time ago that attempted to interpret the local part of an email address in MY domain that had the form "usenet.news.groups" (or something like that, I forget the specific naming convention for sending email to a mail to news gateway at the destination server). It intercepted a message I had intended for testing at MY domain and happily posted it for me.
Many websites don't accept the plus in the email address field.
At which point I determine if my dealing with that website is valuable enough TO ME to open up my unplussed address for the short period of time it takes to deal with whatever email they are sending, or valuable enough to them that a complaint about their defective website will get around that error (if you call customer service, many times they can bypass the web nazi).
Most of the stupid ones I deal with are demanding an email address so they an verify my registration, after which any email from them truly is spam and can be tossed without care.
Those aren't worth the effort to complain, but sometimes are worth a few minutes of unfiltering.
Personally, I used to use mailinator, now I have a catch-all in my domain.
I got tired of the dictionary spam I got at the catch-all, which made it worse than simply giving out my real address.
Plus there is at least one turnkey spam-filtering mail server system that has no clue what a + address is. It simply bounces everything that is not a literal match to a valid username.
People who do not understand the RFCs for email should NOT be selling mail servers.
Yes, I'm sure no one would ever think to actually strip out the +component out to get the real address, especially since its a documented feature.
And I'm sure that no one would ever think to use a +-form address as his main one and bit-bucket anything that doesn't have the + in it? Spam away at foo@example.com, my filter accepts email only to foo+something@example.com.
The hotmail alias system is more useful, because the real address can't be harvested trivially from address you give out.
I have no idea why this new hotmail thing is important, since I've never had any trouble creating throw-away hotmail addresses when I want them. They are so completely throw-away that I simply walk away from one when I no longer want it. I never see it again.
The time the city council is spending considering the proposal probably takes away from other town business...
In many cases, having the town council spending time on this kind of crap is MUCH better than having them try to deal with anything important. This rule will hose just their employees. Stupid laws and more taxes have an effect on everyone in town.
Last election, one of our city councilors was running for re-election to that and for the House of Reps. He was a Green Party candidate and thus unlikely to win the house, but I voted for him anyway because I figured he could do less damage as one in 435 at the federal level than as 1 in 7 at the city level. We lost, he got back on the council.
In my case I saw that a protected turn light and a pedestrian walk signal would give cars the right of way to run over anyone in the crosswalk that was crossing when indicated.
You live in a stupid place. Where real people live, a pedestrian crossing with the signal always has the right of way, even if there is a green light telling cars they can make a right turn.
They gave Obama the Peace Prize for his diplomatic actions as a Senator.
Except he spent all his time as a senator running for President, and the job of a senator doesn't involve foreign policy or diplomatic missions. Foreign policy is the realm of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative.
Ahhh, another one of those who don't read the Constitution. No, Obama didn't get us out of "the Bush administration", the fact that the second term ended and a third was not possible did that, and that's in the Constitution.
I bet you drove around with an "anyone but Bush" bumper sticker in the 2008 campaign.
Yes, I'm being silly, but there were a lot of people on the left and on the right who honestly wondered if Bush was going to leave office or just declare an eternal state of emergency.
No, there weren't. There was no honest belief that that would happen. There were scare and fear mongers who spouted it as if it were a fact, but nobody honestly believed it.
The world was tired of the Bush administration and their pro-war foreign policy, and the committee was banking on Obama making a change by giving him a major incentive to do so.
That's just silly. Giving someone an allegedly prestigious award isn't incentive for them to do anything but talk about how they got this prestigious award. They've gotten the award, it is unlikely they will get another anytime soon, so there is no reason to do anything to merit one. No, you want to provide an incentive to modify behaviour, you say "you are in an incredible position to do good for the planet. If you do, we'll give you an award."
More important, I would rather have a President who does good things because he does good things without expectation of winning a Nobel, not one that does good things only because he sees a Nobel as an incentive.
And finally, I'd rather have a President who looks first to the US for his guidance on how to deal with foreign affairs and not be bought off by the love of people in other countries and whatever awards they might want to bestow on him. I'd even go so far as to say that running US foreign policy based on the desires of foreigners ought to be a disqualifying condition for US President.
I think a Lego Czar should live in the middle of Legoland in a castle made of Lego bricks....
(That line is a quote but the italic tag no longer seems to italic it...)
And he should bathe in a Lego bathtub, and sleep in a Lego bed, and eat from utensils made entirely of
Lego bricks, so that he can legitimately tell the cook for his breakfast in the morning "Eggo my Lego...".
And he should marry a young woman made entirely of plastic bricks so he can have the "Lord of the Rings"
fantasy life of living with a "Lego lass".
Unfortunately, he will probably suffer from a sudden illness that has a mysterious source but somehow attributed to
poorly maintained air conditioners: "Lego-naires disease".
Please someone tell me how to turn off the new layout. Having all the articles on the same grey background with no clear demark is minor annoyance compared to the fixed navigation floating on the left upper corner that covers up the articles...
Congratulations. Now you can notice how very rare they are / how their compositions are not of average kind.
Really? Back when people bought a lot of pictures of places they'd never go to and would never see "moving" (as in "on TV") the stereoscope was quite popular and you can still find a lot of pictures from that day. Viewmasters were quite popular, as well.
My first contact with non-Viewmaster pictures was when NASA released a book on the moon mission, IIRC, with stereoscopic image pairs and the instructions how to converge until the images overlapped and focus so they focussed. Not that hard. Reasonable results.
But what about rapid movement toward the viewer? Yes, we see a car aiming for us. But it advances by growing larger against its background, not by detaching from it. Nor did we evolve to stand still and regard its advance. To survive, we learned instinctively to turn around, leap aside, run away. We didn't just stand there evolving the ability to enjoy a 3-D movie."
1. A car advances toward us by physically moving toward us, not by "growing larger". That movement makes it appear as if the car were "growing larger" AND the point of convergence of the image moving toward us. Both. It has been long proven that the simple appearance of "growing larger" is insufficient for depth perception, since people with just one eye will observe the growth effect but not the convergence effect, and they have no depth perception. This lack of convergence creating a lack of depth perception is used ALL THE TIME by 2D movie makers. It's how Frodo was made to look so small compared to Gandalf, for example. Frodo was further from the camera and thus appeared smaller than he would have standing next to Gandalf. The lack of 3D convergence made it appear that both actors were standing next to each other, and our brains told us that Frodo must be smaller.
2. Of course we evolved to "stand still" when things approach us. We do not all "run away" when our loved ones approach, nor do we all run away when we are standing on the side of the road and a car approaches us. We use our 3-D vision to recognize which things are threats and which are not. I'm sorry, but a cartoon bear falling from a broken glider does not instill fear in most people. Roger Ebert is the exception.
"we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us."
I don't know about Roger Ebert, but yes, I do perceive objects in my field of vision as detached from the background all the time. They don't "dislodge" themselves because they weren't lodged there to begin with, and any 3D movie that changes from 2D (objects "lodged" on the background) to 3D is a poorly made 3-D film.
I found the Yogi in 3D movie to be quite entertaining and the 3D effects did make it better than a simple 2D version. It helped focus the attention on the relevant action by bringing it to the front of the scene, instead of simply having a flat pair of cartoon bears dealing with a flat Mr. Ranger Sir and his hot love interest.
No I'm not. I'm disagreeing with the statement that "christian fundamentalists don't make up anywhere close to a small minority".
In this context, "Christian Fundamentalist" is being compared to "Islamic Fundamentalist", and the latter term applies to those who are actively blowing things (and themselves) up make a political point. Thus, by claiming there is much more than a small minority of Christian fundamentalists, you are painting a large number of evangelical Christians as bomb-carrying extremists.
If you want to say there are a lot of evangelicals who are strong believers, fine. You want to label them with the label applied to bombers and such, not so fine.
By the way, upthread you ask the question if someone had been met in WV by someone whose first question was "what church you from?". So what? Are you scared they're going to blow you up or cut off your head if you answer incorrectly? Hardly.
Worship a god that manifests as a vandal? Fantastic...
So, if you go home tonight and find someone sitting in your comfy chair watching your television, ordering pay per view movies, and eating your cheetos, you'll just sit on the couch and ask him to please pass the bag? Or will you have the stranger ejected from your house and arrested for trespassing? Might you grab the remote control from his hand before he leaves? Yes? YOU VANDAL!
It's your house. It was His house. He wasn't vandalizing His own house. He was ejecting the refuse. Now you might try to claim that it wasn't His house really, but the people there called it that and believed it to be so, just like you believe that the house you are paying mortgage payments on (or rent to occupy) is "yours" for the purposes of kicking out the trash.
there is a difference between a real scientist and one writing "research" for money...
There are very few scientists who "write research" without being paid by someone. It's nice to be able to 'do science' as a hobby and not get paid for it, but most scientists get a paycheck just like the local auto mechanic.
Catholic church has historically had a 10% tax - a "tithe", to be paid by everyone in the congregation (or even not, lest they burn in hell)
Yes, and exactly how does this refute anything I said? Pezbian said: "Faith should never cost nor earn a paycheck for anyone." I'm pointing out that true faith ALWAYS has a cost, else it is worthless. Meaningless. A "faith" that tells you that everything is ok and you can keep doing exactly what you were doing all along is the only kind of faith that has no cost, and of what meaning is that?
Talking about the Catholic church in a discussion about Christianity is silly. Things like not worshiping idols (statues of the "Holy Mother") sorta rules them out as true Christians. Even so, tithing is voluntary. If I'm not mistaken, even the Catholics say you can buy the redemption of your loved ones, so you can refuse to tithe for an entire lifetime and have someone else pay for you. But that, too, is such a stretch of the true rules of Christianity that it serves as another example of why they are not.
My last impression (as we were getting ready to come home) was that they had a little old lady cleaning the men's room. Not only was it open, no one seemed bothered by it.
I'm curious. Exactly why should anyone be bothered by it? Was she too old to be working and should have been on retirement? Or is your junk so special that you think a little old lady is getting turned on by seeing you handle it?
Really? As a non-American looking in on America, I would whole-heartedly disagree with your summation. The Christian Fundamentalist is alive and well and living the American Dream.
So you are implying that the Christian Fundamentalists are busy blowing up the local 7-11s on a regular basis to protest the local police department? They get on a busload of women and children and blow themselves up on a regular basis to take out the Muslims aboard?
You're trying to paint a very large number of people by the actions of a very few, which is what seems to be off-limits when the people are Muslim and the religion is Islam. And when it takes going back as far as the Inquisition to find an example that is even remotely close to today's activities in Israel and Iraq, well, nice try, but those people are dead and we aren't responsible for what they did 1200 years ago.
IF you're' not using a straight key then you are not a HAM.....
At the point I qualified for QCWA, I joined up. One of the last magazines from them I got had a remarkably spiteful article or editorial about all those no-code people. I thought it must be an April fool joke, but a quick exchange of email with the author proved me wrong.
I have no time for such crap. I know too many smart people who work hard and are valuable assets to ham radio that have no code licenses, and I say that as someone who did have to pass the code when I got mine.
Yes, our part of the country is pretty hilly. If you aren't on top of the mountain, you get spotty coverage over everything but the cities that tend to be built in the flat areas. Unfortunately, the criminals and heart attacks and lost people also operate in the hilly bits and radio coverage needs to extend there.
If you are on the mountain top, then you get hit by the safe harbor rules and your power levels are cut drastically. I think our highest mountain has a power limit of something like five watts. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about it, so I don't remember exactly.
As for vacuuming, that whooshing sound isn't the sound of someone vacuuming the rug, it is the sound of the joke whizzing past.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I'l bite. Where in 5233 does it document the + addressing?
I agree, you do have to read quite a ways into the RFC to find it, and it is hidden deep deep ... wait -- Section 1. Second paragraph.
Typical uses of subaddressing might be: o A message addressed to "ken+sieve@example.org" is delivered into a mailbox called "sieve" belonging to the user "ken".
...which appears to be really close to the text I quoted in my original answer.
That text does not appear in RFC2822, which is where you claimed it came from.
The critical point here is that "+" is *not* a standard or part of a standard.
The critical point here is that you are wrong. The critical point after that is that what you claimed the RFC says is also wrong. There is nothing in any RFC that says that foo and foo+bar are different mailboxes and that the destination host cannot treat them as the same, only that INTERMEDIATE transports may not assume anything about them.
That means that the spam filter is following the RFC. The + address is a convention of a number of email systems but Foo+Bar@domain.com and Foo@domain.com are unrelated email addresses according to RFC2822.
BUSTED! The text you claim appears in 3.4.1 of RFC2822 does not appear therein, nor does it appear in RFC 5322. RFC5322 says:
Note: A liberal syntax for the domain portion of addr-spec is given here. However, the domain portion contains addressing information specified by and used in other protocols (e.g., [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC1123], [RFC5321]). It is therefore incumbent upon implementations to conform to the syntax of addresses for the context in which they are used.
What you quoted comes from RFC5321 (SMTP protocol) para. 2.3.11, and is preceded by the following sentence:
The standard mailbox naming convention is defined to be "local-part@domain"; contemporary usage permits a much broader set of applications than simple "user names".
In other words, RFC5321 explicitly says that mailboxes (the local part of the email address) are much broader in scope than simple "user names" in contemporary usage. RFC5233 documents the use of + addressing and thus makes it an RFC (proposed) standard item. And none of the RFCs specifies that foo+bar and foo must be or even should be unrelated mailboxes -- except they must be considered as such by intermediate hosts.
Again, what you quoted deals with the actions of intermediate hosts alone. It says only the destination host may assign meaning to the local part, but not that it must assign different meanings to two non-identical local parts.
Unless you are maybe arguing that "MUST be interpreted and assigned semantics only by the host specified in the domain part of the address" really means that the "domain part host" is allowed to freely ignore any interpretation assigned by any RFC, since that host would be the only thing that can assign any. That would be a ridiculous interpretation, especially since that interpretation would mean there is, effectively, NO standard for the local part of an email address and it may contain anything the destination host would desire.
No, that part of the RFC deals with things like a system I ran across a very long time ago that attempted to interpret the local part of an email address in MY domain that had the form "usenet.news.groups" (or something like that, I forget the specific naming convention for sending email to a mail to news gateway at the destination server). It intercepted a message I had intended for testing at MY domain and happily posted it for me.
Many websites don't accept the plus in the email address field.
At which point I determine if my dealing with that website is valuable enough TO ME to open up my unplussed address for the short period of time it takes to deal with whatever email they are sending, or valuable enough to them that a complaint about their defective website will get around that error (if you call customer service, many times they can bypass the web nazi).
Most of the stupid ones I deal with are demanding an email address so they an verify my registration, after which any email from them truly is spam and can be tossed without care. Those aren't worth the effort to complain, but sometimes are worth a few minutes of unfiltering.
Personally, I used to use mailinator, now I have a catch-all in my domain.
I got tired of the dictionary spam I got at the catch-all, which made it worse than simply giving out my real address.
People who do not understand the RFCs for email should NOT be selling mail servers.
Yes, I'm sure no one would ever think to actually strip out the +component out to get the real address, especially since its a documented feature.
And I'm sure that no one would ever think to use a +-form address as his main one and bit-bucket anything that doesn't have the + in it? Spam away at foo@example.com, my filter accepts email only to foo+something@example.com.
The hotmail alias system is more useful, because the real address can't be harvested trivially from address you give out.
I have no idea why this new hotmail thing is important, since I've never had any trouble creating throw-away hotmail addresses when I want them. They are so completely throw-away that I simply walk away from one when I no longer want it. I never see it again.
The time the city council is spending considering the proposal probably takes away from other town business...
In many cases, having the town council spending time on this kind of crap is MUCH better than having them try to deal with anything important. This rule will hose just their employees. Stupid laws and more taxes have an effect on everyone in town.
Last election, one of our city councilors was running for re-election to that and for the House of Reps. He was a Green Party candidate and thus unlikely to win the house, but I voted for him anyway because I figured he could do less damage as one in 435 at the federal level than as 1 in 7 at the city level. We lost, he got back on the council.
In my case I saw that a protected turn light and a pedestrian walk signal would give cars the right of way to run over anyone in the crosswalk that was crossing when indicated.
You live in a stupid place. Where real people live, a pedestrian crossing with the signal always has the right of way, even if there is a green light telling cars they can make a right turn.
We don't get the cool "Bud. Weis. Er" ads of the past.
"Doctor, this patient has money coming out the wazoo..."
They gave Obama the Peace Prize for his diplomatic actions as a Senator.
Except he spent all his time as a senator running for President, and the job of a senator doesn't involve foreign policy or diplomatic missions. Foreign policy is the realm of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative.
Easy, he got us out of the Bush administration.
Ahhh, another one of those who don't read the Constitution. No, Obama didn't get us out of "the Bush administration", the fact that the second term ended and a third was not possible did that, and that's in the Constitution.
I bet you drove around with an "anyone but Bush" bumper sticker in the 2008 campaign.
Yes, I'm being silly, but there were a lot of people on the left and on the right who honestly wondered if Bush was going to leave office or just declare an eternal state of emergency.
No, there weren't. There was no honest belief that that would happen. There were scare and fear mongers who spouted it as if it were a fact, but nobody honestly believed it.
The world was tired of the Bush administration and their pro-war foreign policy, and the committee was banking on Obama making a change by giving him a major incentive to do so.
That's just silly. Giving someone an allegedly prestigious award isn't incentive for them to do anything but talk about how they got this prestigious award. They've gotten the award, it is unlikely they will get another anytime soon, so there is no reason to do anything to merit one. No, you want to provide an incentive to modify behaviour, you say "you are in an incredible position to do good for the planet. If you do, we'll give you an award."
More important, I would rather have a President who does good things because he does good things without expectation of winning a Nobel, not one that does good things only because he sees a Nobel as an incentive.
And finally, I'd rather have a President who looks first to the US for his guidance on how to deal with foreign affairs and not be bought off by the love of people in other countries and whatever awards they might want to bestow on him. I'd even go so far as to say that running US foreign policy based on the desires of foreigners ought to be a disqualifying condition for US President.
(That line is a quote but the italic tag no longer seems to italic it...)
And he should bathe in a Lego bathtub, and sleep in a Lego bed, and eat from utensils made entirely of Lego bricks, so that he can legitimately tell the cook for his breakfast in the morning "Eggo my Lego...".
And he should marry a young woman made entirely of plastic bricks so he can have the "Lord of the Rings" fantasy life of living with a "Lego lass".
Unfortunately, he will probably suffer from a sudden illness that has a mysterious source but somehow attributed to poorly maintained air conditioners: "Lego-naires disease".
Thanks ladies and germs, I'll be here all week.
Please someone tell me how to turn off the new layout. Having all the articles on the same grey background with no clear demark is minor annoyance compared to the fixed navigation floating on the left upper corner that covers up the articles...
Really? Back when people bought a lot of pictures of places they'd never go to and would never see "moving" (as in "on TV") the stereoscope was quite popular and you can still find a lot of pictures from that day. Viewmasters were quite popular, as well.
My first contact with non-Viewmaster pictures was when NASA released a book on the moon mission, IIRC, with stereoscopic image pairs and the instructions how to converge until the images overlapped and focus so they focussed. Not that hard. Reasonable results.
1. A car advances toward us by physically moving toward us, not by "growing larger". That movement makes it appear as if the car were "growing larger" AND the point of convergence of the image moving toward us. Both. It has been long proven that the simple appearance of "growing larger" is insufficient for depth perception, since people with just one eye will observe the growth effect but not the convergence effect, and they have no depth perception. This lack of convergence creating a lack of depth perception is used ALL THE TIME by 2D movie makers. It's how Frodo was made to look so small compared to Gandalf, for example. Frodo was further from the camera and thus appeared smaller than he would have standing next to Gandalf. The lack of 3D convergence made it appear that both actors were standing next to each other, and our brains told us that Frodo must be smaller.
2. Of course we evolved to "stand still" when things approach us. We do not all "run away" when our loved ones approach, nor do we all run away when we are standing on the side of the road and a car approaches us. We use our 3-D vision to recognize which things are threats and which are not. I'm sorry, but a cartoon bear falling from a broken glider does not instill fear in most people. Roger Ebert is the exception.
"we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us."
I don't know about Roger Ebert, but yes, I do perceive objects in my field of vision as detached from the background all the time. They don't "dislodge" themselves because they weren't lodged there to begin with, and any 3D movie that changes from 2D (objects "lodged" on the background) to 3D is a poorly made 3-D film.
I found the Yogi in 3D movie to be quite entertaining and the 3D effects did make it better than a simple 2D version. It helped focus the attention on the relevant action by bringing it to the front of the scene, instead of simply having a flat pair of cartoon bears dealing with a flat Mr. Ranger Sir and his hot love interest.
In this context, "Christian Fundamentalist" is being compared to "Islamic Fundamentalist", and the latter term applies to those who are actively blowing things (and themselves) up make a political point. Thus, by claiming there is much more than a small minority of Christian fundamentalists, you are painting a large number of evangelical Christians as bomb-carrying extremists.
If you want to say there are a lot of evangelicals who are strong believers, fine. You want to label them with the label applied to bombers and such, not so fine.
By the way, upthread you ask the question if someone had been met in WV by someone whose first question was "what church you from?". So what? Are you scared they're going to blow you up or cut off your head if you answer incorrectly? Hardly.
So, if you go home tonight and find someone sitting in your comfy chair watching your television, ordering pay per view movies, and eating your cheetos, you'll just sit on the couch and ask him to please pass the bag? Or will you have the stranger ejected from your house and arrested for trespassing? Might you grab the remote control from his hand before he leaves? Yes? YOU VANDAL!
It's your house. It was His house. He wasn't vandalizing His own house. He was ejecting the refuse. Now you might try to claim that it wasn't His house really, but the people there called it that and believed it to be so, just like you believe that the house you are paying mortgage payments on (or rent to occupy) is "yours" for the purposes of kicking out the trash.
there is a difference between a real scientist and one writing "research" for money...
There are very few scientists who "write research" without being paid by someone. It's nice to be able to 'do science' as a hobby and not get paid for it, but most scientists get a paycheck just like the local auto mechanic.
Yes, and exactly how does this refute anything I said? Pezbian said: "Faith should never cost nor earn a paycheck for anyone." I'm pointing out that true faith ALWAYS has a cost, else it is worthless. Meaningless. A "faith" that tells you that everything is ok and you can keep doing exactly what you were doing all along is the only kind of faith that has no cost, and of what meaning is that?
Talking about the Catholic church in a discussion about Christianity is silly. Things like not worshiping idols (statues of the "Holy Mother") sorta rules them out as true Christians. Even so, tithing is voluntary. If I'm not mistaken, even the Catholics say you can buy the redemption of your loved ones, so you can refuse to tithe for an entire lifetime and have someone else pay for you. But that, too, is such a stretch of the true rules of Christianity that it serves as another example of why they are not.
Excellent. The ends do justify the means.
I'm curious. Exactly why should anyone be bothered by it? Was she too old to be working and should have been on retirement? Or is your junk so special that you think a little old lady is getting turned on by seeing you handle it?
So you are implying that the Christian Fundamentalists are busy blowing up the local 7-11s on a regular basis to protest the local police department? They get on a busload of women and children and blow themselves up on a regular basis to take out the Muslims aboard?
You're trying to paint a very large number of people by the actions of a very few, which is what seems to be off-limits when the people are Muslim and the religion is Islam. And when it takes going back as far as the Inquisition to find an example that is even remotely close to today's activities in Israel and Iraq, well, nice try, but those people are dead and we aren't responsible for what they did 1200 years ago.
Agreed, but probably not the same meaning as yours.
Faith should never cost nor earn a paycheck for anyone.
So people who provide services based on that faith should never get paid to do it? Hmmm.
How does one practice one's faith that includes charity to the poor without cost?
Faith without cost is meaningless faith. Something about "putting ones money where one's mouth is" comes to mind.
At the point I qualified for QCWA, I joined up. One of the last magazines from them I got had a remarkably spiteful article or editorial about all those no-code people. I thought it must be an April fool joke, but a quick exchange of email with the author proved me wrong.
I have no time for such crap. I know too many smart people who work hard and are valuable assets to ham radio that have no code licenses, and I say that as someone who did have to pass the code when I got mine.
If you are on the mountain top, then you get hit by the safe harbor rules and your power levels are cut drastically. I think our highest mountain has a power limit of something like five watts. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about it, so I don't remember exactly.
As for vacuuming, that whooshing sound isn't the sound of someone vacuuming the rug, it is the sound of the joke whizzing past. :-)