Posts Made By: rushby craig

Very Nice! What did you use for bearings on your mount? And the tripod?

BOB GUNNERSON said:

I RECEIVED MY 6" F12 D&G REFRACTOR AFTER ABOUT A 10 MONTH WAIT. THE LENS IS PERFECT AND I'M SEEING LOTS OF NEW FINE LUNAR AND PLANETARY DETAIL.

THE PICTURE SHOWS MY HOME MADE ALT - AZ MOUNT FOR IT.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

I have a Takahashi FS 128. It is a very nice scope--especially for visual. And you can pick them up used on Amart for a very reasonable price compared to some of the other choices you have on your list.

I believe that faith in Christ is what brings salvation, but faith is not only belief. Faith in Christ is a belief that motivates us to serve God, and to do what he asks us to do. We do not really have faith if we passively believe, but fail to keep God's commandments as best we can, and don't repent and try to improve each day as we make mistakes. We also need to try to do good for mankind to the extent that we can. This is how we show our love for God, and appreciation for his gift to us. This, I believe, is the pathway to salvation.

I believe that Paul's emphasis on faith is due to a particular audience that was dedicated to strict obedience to the commandments to the exclusion of the foundation of faith in Christ. And I believe that James comments about "faith without works" are focused toward an audience who were relying only on professions of belief without action. So in my view, these two different viewpoints are reconcilable.

Scott Mortimer said:

The 31mm Nagler and 35mm Panoptic are great eyepieces. Lately I've been using 30mm and 40mm Pentax XWs and they are also great, you might want to try one.

Thanks Scott for the suggestion. Never seen a Pentax XW in person. So the AFOV on these eyepieces is 70 deg--similar to the Panoptic...

JD Metzger said:

A person who can't understand the facts is stupid. A person who is unaware of the facts is ignorant. A person who distorts the facts or makes up his own "facts" is a liar. Beck is neither stupid nor ignorant, he's just a liar...

I don't think Glenn Beck is a liar. I think he is just saying what he thinks. I can't say that I listen to him all of the time--when I have, I've heard him say much that I agree with. I have heard him say some things that go farther than I would.

Sometimes we call people liars when they just don't see things the way we do. Sometimes what we think is a fact, may not be.

For instance, President Obama said in his speech last week some things that to me were obvious lies. (e.g Health Care reform will be deficit neutral, there won't be any rationing of health care under his plan, that these are undisputable facts, etc.) But I don't think that HE thinks he lied. And I don't think that he is an evil person because he is shading the truth. I think that he could be much more honest about it though.

People have the tendency to use debate tactics instead of truth when they talk. Winning a debate doesn't mean you have the truth--it may mean thaty your'e better at being manipulative. People use hyperbole when trying to persuade you for their point of view, and to persuade you against the other point of view. I'm not a fan of debate for that reason. I'd prefer the attempt for someone to be straight with me.

This whole arguement over "death panels" is another example. When people on the right bring this up, it is because they fear rationing of health care by the government. They have a point. There most definitely will be rationing by the government if they have control. The term "death panels" is hyperbole. People on the left rightly bring up the fact that insurance companies also ration care because they sometimes deny treatments and drop policies when people get sick. But they often overstate how much that happens--like that is the norm, instead of being an anomaly. People on both sides need to listen more and stop demonizing each other.

think that we would be better off if Congress started with something that bipartisan agreement could be reached on--Namely, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, outlawing denial of coverage based on existing conditions, and limits on malpractice suits. This would make progress that most people can agree on.

I believe that states could better address insurance coverage for their citizens than the federal government can. And we ought to let them experiment with different solutions that they each think would work for them. This approach would also lessen the risks of taking a wrong step at the federal level, since states would be in effect trying pilots of various solutions at a smaller scale. Several knowledgeable officials such as former HHS secretary Mike Leavitt have proposed this approach, but it doesnt seem to get any airtime with the talking heads.