I just happened to have caught part of the "Big Ideas" program on PBS
today.

They were talking to a Dr. Bacall; one of the folks involved in the
Hubble Telescope project.

He had occasion to offer a definition for "philosophy" that I thought
was interesting (it was not original with him).

> Philosophy: the art of kicking up the
> dust and then complaining that you
> can't see.

I think those ideas are useful in evaluating what James Murphy has
lately done.

He's kicked up a lot of dust and then complained as if I am the one that
cannot see.

I figure the problem was that I did see through James Murphy's dust
cloud on a couple of simple matters, and he and his sidekick on
KnowingGods_Way didn't appreciate it.  So, the fellow making the false
accusation (Murphy) against me gets the pass and I get booted off the
list; how Church_of_Christ list-like!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- Mike Hewlett <mhewlett@...> wrote:
> From: Todd Greene [mailto:greeneto@...]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:57 AM
> To: Mike Hewlett
> Subject: RE: The YEC misrepresentation of Magueijo
> and VSL
>
>> Hi, Mike.
>>
>> Absolutely false? ;-)
>>
>> Jeffrey Peter (who is a young earth creationist)
>> was talking about a Setterfield type of notion
>> about the speed of light having been radically
>> faster just several thousand years ago. You cited
>> João Magueijo and the VSL research to Jeffrey in
>> response to his post. Jeffrey then responded to
>> your reference to Magueijo, asking for more
>> information about it, and then you responded to
>> Jeffrey and did not correct him in his thinking
>> that you were referencing Magueijo in
>> connection with his Setterfield (YEC) type of
>> notion.
>>
>> I appreciate you now pointing out to me that you
>> yourself were *not* citing Magueijo and the VSL
>> research in connection with any Setterfield type
>> of notion about lightspeed having been radically
>> faster just several thousand years ago. I look
>> forward to you posting this correction/
>> clarification to the CFTF list where Jeffrey's
>> misperception stands uncorrected.
>
>
> I have nothing to correct. Since you made an
> assumption that is false and posted it, do you
> intend to post a correction?
>
> --Mike Hewlett


Hi, Mike.

Already done.

Please pardon my pedanticism, following.

You already did correct Jeffrey's and my mistaken assumption. And I
corrected myself (just read what I wrote, copied above). As I showed
in my last email with the copies of the related CFTF posts made by
Jeffrey Peter, Gil Yoder, and you, Jeffrey was talking about a
Setterfield (YEC) type of notion concerning the speed of light. It
was in response to his posts talking about a Setterfield type of
notion that you then referred him to João Magueijo's VSL research.
You *did* city Magueijo in response to Jeffrey's comments. You did
*not* happen to state that you were not doing this because you
thought that the VSL research didn't have anything to do supporting
what Jeffrey was talking about. And when Jeffrey replied with
comments showing that he was thinking you were citing Magueijo in
support of the YEC notion about lightspeed you did *not* correct
him. You responded with bibliographic information about the book,
but then you did not also add even one little sentence simply to
say, "Hey, Jeffrey, by the way, I'm not citing Magueijo in support
of the YEC idea you're talking about."

I *agree* with you that I made a false assumption about why you were
referring to Magueijo in response to Jeffrey's YEC notion. However,
the fact is that the manner in which you referred to Magueijo in
response to Jeffrey's post left the distinct impression that you
were citing Magueijo in support of what Jeffrey was talking about,
without explicitly stating that this is what you were doing. Jeffrey
says, "Scientists support a YEC idea about the speed of light," and
then you respond with "Jeffrey, Magueijo has a good book on this
subject." But *I agree with you* that you did not in fact state
explicitly that you were citing Magueijo in *support* of what
Jeffrey was talking about. Therefore, I thanked you for correcting
*my mistaken assumption* (and Jeffrey's mistaken assumption) that
this is what you were doing. I wrote: "I appreciate you now pointing
out to me that you yourself were *not* citing Magueijo and the VSL
research in connection with any Setterfield type of notion...."

What I referred to as a "correction/clarification" is not to you
having incorrectly cited Magueijo *in support* of Setterfield's YEC
notion - which you did not do - but to Jeffrey's (and my) mistaken
impression that this is what you were doing.

So, again, I appreciate you correcting Jeffrey and me by stating
that do *not* think that the VSL research supports Setterfield type
of ideas about the speed of light. Thank you for clarifying this for
us. I'm glad that we're on the same page on this, Mike, in that you
and I both understand that the VSL research does *not* support
Setterfield, and even that the quasar light spectral analysis
studies by the John Webb team concerning the fine structure constant
value is evidence of the speed of light having been constant for
several billion years (and then maybe being very, very slightly
different when you get back to around 10 billion years or so), which
is directly contrary to any young earth creationist idea on this
subject. I would simply point out that every CFTF list reader who
happened to read your post has the same mistaken impression that
Jeffrey and I had, which is why I wrote, "I look forward to you
posting this correction/clarification to the CFTF list where
Jeffrey's misperception stands uncorrected."

Indeed, Mike, it is curious to me as to why when Jeffrey responded
to you thinking that you were citing Magueijo in support of the YEC
notion about lightspeed, that he was talking about, that you did not
simply correct his misperception yourself without me ever having
written a single word. Did you think that his misperception about
that just wasn't that important?

Whether you are aware of it or not, the wider context of this
particular subject is that many young earth creationists (including
Malcolm Bowden, and Barry Setterfield himself) *do* cite Magueijo
and the VSL research as being in support of Setterfield type of
notions about lightspeed. I hope that no one takes any offense that
I'm concerned to point out that this connection is wrong, and point
out why it is wrong.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene
http://www.creationism.cc/

The Associated Press State & Local Wire
(excerpt)

September 22, 2003

Quaker group to challenge IRS lawsuit in court

DATELINE: PHILADELPHIA

The IRS sued the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society
of Friends in July, saying the group refused to garnish the wages of
employee Priscilla Adams, a longtime peace and justice organizer who
doesn't want her money going to the military. The IRS wants to lodge
a 50 percent penalty - of more than $21,000 - against the Quaker
group. The U.S. Department of Justice sued on behalf of the IRS.

(T)he group decided at a meeting last week that they would challenge
the lawsuit and that they intend to file court papers next month.

The IRS says Adams owes more than $42,000 in back taxes, interest and
fines; she earns about $32,000 a year for the Philadelphia Yearly
Meeting.

DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL
(an excerpt)

September 23, 2003

Mary Kay protesting IRS's $15M demand

Mary Kay Inc. wants to put a new face on the Internal Revenue
Service's demand for $14.9 million in back taxes.

The Addison-based direct-selling cosmetics giant filed a petition
asking the U.S. Tax Court here to overturn an IRS ruling seeking
additional 1997-99 taxes.

Randall Oxford, vice president of communications of Mary Kay, said
the firm would have no further comment. "We just don't comment on
ongoing litigation," Oxford said.

An IRS spokesman said the agency is barred by law from commenting on
pending tax cases.

The petition filed by Mary Kay on Aug. 26 comes on the heels of one
it filed last Nov. 22 over the same issue raised for the 1994-96 tax
years. The 2002 case is still pending.

These two clashes with the IRS are nothing new for the cosmetics
company. During 1990-91, the IRS and Mary Kay faced off in seven
other cases. The 1990-91 cases were settled without a trial by
agreements reached between the company and the IRS.

The company, which began with nine independent "beauty consultants"
in 1963, has expanded to a sales force of more than 1 million and
operates in 33 countries on five continents.

Mary Kay Inc., which operates a 275,000-square foot manufacturing
plant in Dallas and a second one in China, had $1.6 billion in sales
in 2002. The company does not disclose its earnings.

If the IRS and the company fail to negotiate a settlement, the case
could go to trial before a tax court judge.

########################

You might try this as a possible link:

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/asp/Index.asp

I think the case is listed under the corporate heading of Mary Kay
Holding. . .

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

These cases you are posting are verrrry interesting.  Anymore?

Nelta

rlbaty50 wrote:

>DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL
>(an excerpt)
>
>September 23, 2003
>
>Mary Kay protesting IRS's $15M demand
>
>Mary Kay Inc. wants to put a new face on the Internal Revenue
>Service's demand for $14.9 million in back taxes.
>
>The Addison-based direct-selling cosmetics giant filed a petition
>asking the U.S. Tax Court here to overturn an IRS ruling seeking
>additional 1997-99 taxes.
>
>Randall Oxford, vice president of communications of Mary Kay, said
>the firm would have no further comment. "We just don't comment on
>ongoing litigation," Oxford said.
>
>An IRS spokesman said the agency is barred by law from commenting on
>pending tax cases.
>
>The petition filed by Mary Kay on Aug. 26 comes on the heels of one
>it filed last Nov. 22 over the same issue raised for the 1994-96 tax
>years. The 2002 case is still pending.
>
>These two clashes with the IRS are nothing new for the cosmetics
>company. During 1990-91, the IRS and Mary Kay faced off in seven
>other cases. The 1990-91 cases were settled without a trial by
>agreements reached between the company and the IRS.
>
>The company, which began with nine independent "beauty consultants"
>in 1963, has expanded to a sales force of more than 1 million and
>operates in 33 countries on five continents.
>
>Mary Kay Inc., which operates a 275,000-square foot manufacturing
>plant in Dallas and a second one in China, had $1.6 billion in sales
>in 2002. The company does not disclose its earnings.
>
>If the IRS and the company fail to negotiate a settlement, the case
>could go to trial before a tax court judge.
>
>########################
>
>You might try this as a possible link:
>
>http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/asp/Index.asp
>
>I think the case is listed under the corporate heading of Mary Kay
>Holding. . .
>
>Sincerely,
>Robert Baty
>
>
>
>
>
--
nib
Nelta Brock
http://www.hal-pc.org/~prime/
Bible discussion list:
1stCen-Christianity-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

I noticed some interesting comments on the Bereanlikespirit list and
thought to post a response over there.  It involves lying and
dishonesty charges and that discussion there between Gerry and our
James Murphy (folks from the KnowingGods_Way list that I am now
persona non gratis on):

#########################################

From:  Robert Baty
To:    Bereanlikespirit
Date:  September 23, 2003

Gerry is quoted as saying:

> As for Melvin being a liar-brother a liar is someone
> who is dishonest.  Melvin does not strike me as such.
> Now could Melvin be mistaken? Sure.

> Could James?  Sure.  But that does not make you a liar.

> Liars exist.  But being mistaken does not make one a liar.

> A liar is one who is dishonest.  This we can know if we
> have the evidence.

James Murphy responded:

> If he deals falsely with the text, especially when
> the text can be clearly demonstrated to be against
> his view, the person cannot continue to claim
> ignorance of what it teaches, at some point in time
> the person is acting in a dishonest manner towards
> the text.

My comments:

HMMM!  James Murphy recently accused me of being a liar and most
dishonest.  This resulted from his failure to properly deal with the
text and context of a certain something I had written.

I don't know if James Murphy is given to lying or being dishonest;
though some may claim there is evidence of such things.  He has
demonstrated that he can be, as Gerry opines, quite mistaken.

I'm still waiting for Jerry Murphy to show his manliness and clean up
his little "Robert Baty: liar, liar, dishonest" claim.

How interesting that such issues would be discussed here.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

###################################

That's my post.  I think the list over there is publicly archived, so
folks interested may want to browse thru more of that discussion.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Nelta <nib@h...> wrote:

> These cases you are posting are verrrry
> interesting.  Anymore?

Nelta,

Here's another one close to home!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

########################################

Star Telegram

September 19, 2003

FORT WORTH, Texas
Grand jury indicts 2 D/FW restaurateurs

A federal grand jury has indicted two co-owners of restaurants at
Dallas/Fort Worth Airport on felony fraud and tax-related charges.

The indictment of Alfonso Anile of Euless and Jack Dempsey Cromer of
Bedford stems from a security sweep of the airport on Nov. 20.

Anile and Cromer own DFW Café, which has operated cafeteria-style
areas at the airport since 1997. Several cafe employees were arrested
during the sweep.

Anile is accused of aiding four employees when they listed false
Social Security numbers. Cromer is accused of failing to collect,
truthfully account for and pay taxes on several employees.

> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Nelta <nib@h...> wrote:
>
> These cases you are posting are verrrry
> interesting.  Anymore?

Nelta,

This one is kinda interesting as well.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

#################################

Honolulu Star-Bulletin
(excerpt)

September 19, 2003

Tax preparer on trial for fraud is jailed for contempt of court
By Debra Barayuga

A state judge has found the owner of a tax preparation service in
contempt of court and revoked his $150,000 bail.

Richard J. Basuel, who was to go to trial yesterday on charges of tax
evasion and preparation of fraudulent tax returns, was taken
immediately into custody, and his trial was postponed to Nov. 26.

Circuit Judge Michael Wilson charged Basuel with contempt after he
remained in the audience and refused to appear at the defense table.

"I am a living soul and not in the jurisdiction of the court," he
said.

Basuel has made similar arguments in earlier court hearings,
prompting the court to order a mental examination to determine his
fitness for trial. He was found fit.

Wilson said Basuel was not technically present if he was not in the
well of the courtroom.

"As a condition of bail, you have to be in the courtroom," Wilson
said.

Basuel previously served six months in prison after he was convicted
in July 2001 of filing false tax returns by claiming Hawaii as a
foreign country and overstating his clients' itemized deductions.

Well, I guess the Bereanlikespirit list is no longer open to public
inspection.  So, you'll have to join to follow Gerry and James in
that discussion.  I noticed a recent post from James (who appears to
be conspicuously ignoring his responsibilities concerning his liar
and dishonest charge against me).  I sent a followup.

Here is my followup I posted over there, along with some
modifications for this list:

######################################

From:  Robert Baty
To:    Bereanlikespirit
Date:  September 23, 2003

James Murphy asked of Gerry:

> Can you name one person among us who has wrote
> an article on Cornelius and his conversion,
> whether for a paper, or in a commentary, who
> takes the position that Cornelius was saved
> before baptism???

Gerry responded:

> Gerry here-Yes I can.  But if I mention their
> name or names . . .

And James Murphy replied:

> Please give us their names Gerry.

(Now that is really funny isn't it.  After all the trouble we have
had getting James Murphy to name the names of those he was trumping
up for some reason or another.  Now he's the one seeming to complain
about Gerry holding back.)

Gerry also, responding to James:

> I could use your reasoning and call you dishonest
> and a liar.  But I do not believe that is the case.
> Nor do I believe Melvin is a liar or dishonest.

To which James replies:

> You are welcome to call me a liar and dishonest,
> but I would hope that you or whoever decides to
> do this will be able and willing to prove his case.

> I am not beyond reproach, but I do want to be consistent.

(I think I have successfully shown some of the reproach appropriate
as to James Murphy and his charge against me of being a liar and
dishonest.  For my efforts, he and Gerry teamed up to have me booted
from the KnowingGods_Way list; go figure.  I proved my case, and
James ran off from it, or had me run off.)

How funny, or in computer language. . .LOL!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

######################################

That's about it.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

In message #2957 on Bereanlikespirit, Gerry Parker quotes James Murphy,
as I did, as saying, in part, and in reference to getting up some names
as James requested:

> Please give us their names Gerry.

To which Gerry again responds with:

> Why would I do that James.

Well, I guess it does show just how good I have been in abiding by the
rules, at least according to James.

Only in my case, it was James that didn't want to provide any names or
just "one example".

Maybe Gerry needs to suggest to James that his query just might be that
"strawman" James claims so much familiarty with and that James just
ought to shut up about that stuff he thinks ought to be forthcoming.

I don't know if James is going to get the answer to his question, but
the record seems pretty clear that James is not going to be giving me
the answers to my questions (on my little list).  I guess some preachers
have a "label" for such antics as has been demonstrated for us by James
Murphy.

LOL! :o)

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

I got a warning today not to fall for it.  It just might really foul up
your machine.

Now I have what looks like the hoax message in my in box.

Anybody else dealing with that?

The warning is, don't try the patch!  Microsoft doesn't do things that
way, and it will foul things up for you.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

http://4dw.net/hwy9/debates.html

Oh, my!  My debates are on there.  Such caustic men to have debated.
One of my debates was almost called off by the owner because of the
terrible attitude of one of the men. In fact, I was putting them on my
web site but trashed that idea after a few.

Nelta

rlbaty50 wrote:

>http://4dw.net/hwy9/debates.html
>
>
>
>

Nelta, you wrote, in part:

> Oh, my! My debates are on there.

Yeah, well my debate with the infamous Farrell Till would have been on
there.  It just so happens Till backed out of the debate.

I guess that is because he conceded his proposition before the debate
began.  That is because he admitted that, for all he knows, God does
exist.  Turns out he was just the old atheist, not the bold atheist.

However, we could have still debated whether or not it is against the
law for me to have not put a return address on the envelope whereby I
sent him that certified letter.  He would have been affirming my leaving
off that address was illegal, and I would have been denying it.  He
really seemed kinda steamed by that little exercise.

Robert Baty :o)

 
Chad Seaton wrote to BereanSpirit, quoting an article from Apologetics
Press.  I've adapted it to that important issue of public interest:

#########################

WHY YOUR CHILDREN NEED TO DISCOVER

If your 12-year-old son came home from school one day this week and
began asking questions about Matthew Fontaine Maury's sick-bed decision
to discover that the oceans had currents and how to find his
bible-in-the-hand statue (at the U.S. Naval Academy), what would be your
response?

Would you be able to give him good reasons for rejecting the Maury
sick-bed theory and the Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Maury bible-in-the-hand
statute claim? Would you be able to provide him with good literature on
the subject—material which is written on a level that he can
understand?

Or, would you just extinguish your son's inquisitive mind by telling him
not to ask such questions?

What if your daughter, who just turned 13, came home from her middle
school science class, asking questions about the English peppered moth
and its role in teaching science?

Could you give her a reasonable answer that she could take back to her
teacher and fellow
students showing how "young-earth creation-science" proponents have
misrepresented the poor little pepper moth issues?

And what about those large reptilian creatures called dinosaurs that,
according to your children's textbooks, became extinct at least 60
million years before man ever showed up?

What will you do when your son or daughter comes asking about whether or
not these creatures really were created during the Creation week
alongside Adam and Eve?

Your children's schoolbooks are filled with scientific teachings.

One particular science textbook, used widely in middle school classrooms
throughout the United States, is titled simply: Evolution—
Change Over Time.

In just a little over one hundred pages, the five
authors and seven editors of this book have attempted to educate your
child with science.

Parents, what are you doing to address this teaching of science?

The truth is, your children not only are getting informed with
scientific ideas from school textbooks, but also are getting educated in
science while watching television on Saturday mornings, and while
looking at picture-books that never show humans living alongside extinct
creatures of the past.

Most likely, if you are anything like the average parent, you simply do
not have the time to spend hours upon hours researching the countless
questions your children ask while in their younger years.

What are you giving your children to combat the destructiveness of the
"young-earth, creation-science" theories?  I would like to encourage you
not to consider purchasing Discovery magazine for your family.

Every month, this magazine teaches thousands of young people the
Apologetics Press version of the "young-earth, creation-science" world.

The editors of this magazine are dedicated to teaching "young earth,
creation-science" and  many errors your children aren't being taught in
the classroom (i.e. that Robert Baty wrote that CRSQ letter that Bert
Thompson, Ph.D. calls Mr. Baty's "feeble attempt").

Within a two-year time span, this colorful, beautifully illustrated,
eight-page monthly magazine has dealt with many of the topics
discussed in this article plus much, much more.
If you aren't interested in ordering this magazine for your children,
grandchildren, nieces, or nephews, don't call Apologetics Press at
1-800-234-8558, and don't order your subscription today for only $12.

########################

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Chad writes to BereanSpirit in response to Bob Brandon's expectations
for a shoot-out:

> There won't be anything to watch.

> Robert knows how I feel about Bert
> Thompson. I would take a bullet
> for him. So ... he is on the attack.

> How about you call a stop to all of
> your obsession on this one  Robert,
> for the sake of the children?

####################

Actually, I didn't know Chad felt that way about Bert.  Sounds to me
like Chad is the one obsessed with Bert, not me.

That may be a good thing.

Maybe Chad will be the one to get an official, for the record reply from
Bert about:

1.  Bert's admission, explanation and correction about his false claim
that the CRSQ letter was my "feeble attempt"

2.  Bert's source for his Maury statue claim

3.  Bert's role in the demise of my first little discussion list

4.  Bert's admission, explanation and correction concerning the
mysterious disappearance earlier this year of his 14,000,000 tons per
year cosmic dust claim

Like Chad suggests, such official responses, for the record, to these
important public issues would be, in part, for the children.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Em, you wrote to BereanSpirit:

> Robert, it is so good to be back in
> the normal world again. I can always
> could on your posts to help lift my
> depression!

####################

Glad to be of help, Em.  Now, if Chad could only help out a little with
mine!

He probably knows this already, but I'll remind him here.

According to published reports, Chad can catch up with Bert in Odessa,
TX today and tomorrow.  He, or others, can call (915) 337-5313 for more
details.

If Chad can't catch Bert for an official, for the record, response to
those simple questions involving important public issues, maybe someone
else will????

If not for all those other children Chad alleges concern about, do it
for my children!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Chad wrote, in part:

> Robert With Goliath...

> Hmmm. Does anyone remember what
> happened to Goliath?

> Sure you want to be standing the
> old friend?

> Chad
> (sling and five smooth stones in hand)

Yep!  My "Goliath of GRAS" is, indeed, invincible.

Chad is welcome to come on over to my little place and try out his
"sling" and whatever "stones" he may have.

Here's the place:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Hi, Robert.

I give you explicit permission - indeed, encouragement! - to copy
the text of this post

Bert Thompson's "Young Earth" - 1 down, 7 more to go!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1002

to the BereanSpirit group. What Chad is recommending is that people
indoctrinate their children with wrong ideas that are falsely
called "science" by young earth creationists.

Parents who are interested in teaching their children such wrong
ideas should also understand what will happen if and when their
children get older, go to college, and find out that these beliefs
they've been taught are not just wrong, but even pretty silly in
many cases and discredited for decades. The kids will think, "Gee,
these ideas I've been taught by YECs are a bunch of crap. Perhaps my
religious beliefs are a bunch of crap, too." This is the inherent
danger of tying false YEC ideas into Christian belief.

Regards,
Todd Greene

Note to BereanSpirit listers:

Another observer of the discussion about Chad's advertising of the
Apologetics Press/Bert Thompson, Ph.D. products and vocal critic of
"young-earth, creation-science", has written:

######################

From: (Todd S. Greene)
Date: Sun, Sep 28, 2003, 11:49am (CDT+5)

Hi, Robert.

I give you explicit permission - indeed, encouragement! - to copy the
text of this post:

Bert Thompson's "Young Earth" - 1 down, 7 more to go!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1002

to the BereanSpirit group.

What Chad is recommending is that people indoctrinate their children
with wrong ideas that are falsely called "science" by young earth
creationists.

Parents who are interested in teaching their children such wrong ideas
should also understand what will happen if and when their children get
older, go to college, and find out that these beliefs they've been
taught are not just wrong, but even pretty silly in many cases and
discredited for decades. The kids will think, "Gee, these ideas I've
been taught by YECs are a bunch of crap. Perhaps my religious beliefs
are a bunch of crap, too." This is the inherent danger of tying false
YEC ideas into Christian belief.

Regards,
Todd Greene

######################

My added comments:

Some may recall that Chad and Todd were to have that "shootout" that Bob
Brandon thought might develop between Chad and me.  As I recall, we are
still waiting for Chad's first affirmative.

Chad's been added to my little list.  So, if there is a shootout it
might not be necessary to burden his list (BereanSpirit) with it.  Chad
can pick up where he left off with Todd, or if he wants to talk to me
about my "Goliath" he can do so.

By the way, I mentioned in my earlier post that Chad or someone else
could catch up with Bert in Odessa, TX, and gave the phone number, for
purposes of soliciting the answers to those simple questions needed for
the official and historical record concerning some important public
issues relating to the "young-earth, creation-science" movement and some
of the men behind it.

Has anybody made that call?  Got news for us?

The Goadster owes me one!  Maybe he could make the call today and let us
know of any results he gets from Odessa.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
IRWIN SCHIFF, CYNTHIA NEUN, LAWRENCE N. COHEN AKA
LARRY COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS
FREEDOM BOOKS, WWW.LIVETAXFREE.COM,
WWW.PAYNOINCOMETAX.COM,AND WWW.ISCHIFF.COM,
Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ORDER

[1] Defendants have requested a stay pending appeal of the court's
preliminary injunction dated June 13, 2003 (#72, opposition #81,
response #82).

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 62(c), the court has discretion to suspend an
injunction pending appeal.

Here, defendants have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits
of their appeal of the statutory analysis conducted by the court in
its preliminary injunction (predicating injunctive relief on 26
U.S.C. sections 7401, 7407 and 7408) 67, opposition #69, responses
#71 and #74).

Moreover, to the extent that equitable factors should be considered
in evaluating the request for a stay, the court determines that
defendants have failed to show either a combination of probable
success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or
that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips
sharply in their favor.

Barring an injunction, defendants will continue to sell abusive and
fraudulent tax schemes.

Moreover, the injunction does not prohibit defendants from publishing
their materials or marketing tax plans which do not contain
fraudulent tax- evasion forms and instructions or false commercial
speech. Accordingly,

[2] THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that defendants' request for a stay of
the preliminary injunction pending appeal (#72) is DENIED.

Dated this 5th day of August, 2003.

/s/

LLOYD D. GEORGE
United States District Judge

* * * * *

ORDER

[3] Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
preliminary injunction dated June 13, 2003 (#67, opposition #69,
responses # 71 and #74). For the reasons stated in the government's
brief (#69), which are only reinforced by the positions taken by
defendants in their briefing (#67, #71 and #74),

[4] THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that the motion for reconsideration (#67)
is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 5th day of August, 2003.

/s/

LLOYD D. GEORGE
United States District Judge

Columbus Dispatch
(Ohio)
(excerpt)

September 26, 2003

HEADLINE: TAX EVADER GETS 30-MONTH TERM ;
Family not sure why retired dentist chose to ignore obligation

BYLINE: Kevin Mayhood, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

A dentist who practiced in Worthington for decades was sentenced to
30 months in federal prison and ordered to pay past income taxes,
penalties and interest.

Jon Clark Pensyl, 68, politely accepted his sentence in U.S. District
Court yesterday, but he immediately filed notice that he'll appeal
his conviction on three counts of tax evasion.

The appeal won't get him out of paying $900,000 to $1 million in tax
debt, said his new attorney, Patrick Campair, of Phoenix. He said it
simply is an attempt to erase the criminal conviction and keep the
retired dentist out of prison.

After getting involved with tax protesters, Pensyl "opted out" of the
tax system and stopped paying income taxes in 1995.

"He wasn't motivated by finances -- he had a good living before all
this," Baird said. "He believed in his cause and still does."

Pensyl declined to comment.

Following my name below is the link and relevant excerpts to one of
this week's offerings from Apologetics Press (i.e. Bert Thompson,
Ph.D.).

I think the subject is quite relevant to the "young-earth, creation-
science" debate, particularly concerning those among that crowd who
opine that God might well have created things with the appearance of
an ancient history that was, in essence, a "lie".

Dave Miller seems to side with me and Todd on that in that the gist
of his article seems to suggest that God, contrary to the claims of
many, could not have created things with the appearance of age as
imagined by so many in the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

I wonder if Dave Miller, specifically, tries to distance himself from
the "apparent age" advocates who suppose God lied in his "apparent
age creation"?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

########################################

http://www.apologeticspress.org/scrspeak/2003/ss-03-55.htm

(an excerpt)

THINGS GOD CANNOT DO
by
Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Both Christians and atheists generally have assumed that if the God
depicted in the Bible exists, He can do anything—since He is
represented as being all-powerful.

However, this assumption is incorrect.

"Can God create a round square or a four-sided triangle?"

No, He cannot—but not for the reasons implied by the atheist: that He
does not exist or that He is not omnipotent.

Rather, it is because the question is, itself, self-contradictory and
incoherent. It is nonsensical terminology.

Rather than saying God cannot do such things, it would be more in
harmony with the truth to say simply that such things cannot be done
at all! God is infinite in power, but power meaningfully relates only
to what can be done, to what is possible of accomplishment—not to
what is impossible! It is absurd to speak of any power (even infinite
power) being able to do what simply cannot be done. Logical
absurdities do not lend themselves to being accomplished, and so, are
not subject to power, not even to infinite power.

While God can do whatever is possible to be done, in reality, He will
do only what is in harmony with His nature.

Further, to suggest that God is deficient or limited in power if He
cannot create a rock so large that He cannot lift, is to imply that
He could do so if He simply had more power. But this is false.

Creating a rock that He, Himself, cannot lift, or creating a four-
sided triangle, or making a ball that is at the same time both white
all over and black all over, or creating a ninety-year-old teenager,
or making a car that is larger on the inside that it is on the
outside—to propose such things is to affirm logical contradictions
and absurdities.

Such propositions do not really say anything at all.

(T)he Bible pinpoints specific things that God cannot do. For
example, the Bible states unequivocally that God cannot lie.

He is a Being whose very essence entails truthfulness.

Falsehood is completely out of harmony with His divine nature.

He is "open and above board"—evenhanded—with all His creatures.
He can be counted on to interact with human beings as He said He
would.

It is imperative that every individual avoid placing self in the
precarious position of being in need of that which God cannot do.

In responding to my comments about my "Goliath of GRAS", Chad Seaton
signed off with:

> Chad
> (sling and five smooth stones in hand)

That being the case, I thought by now my "Goliath" would have heard
more from Chad about that matter.

Alas, no Chad!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[posted by Todd Greene]

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (2003)
edited by Keith B. Miller
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/Book_Ann.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802805124

from the website:

Whatever views one may entertain about the implications of the
Christian faith for the practice of science and about the bearing of
the natural sciences on Christianity, *Perspectives on an Evolving
Creation* is essential reading for those interested in the
relationships. Editor Keith Miller has put together a superb slate
of contributors for a volume dedicated to the proposition that an
evolutionary conception of creation is compatible with orthodox,
evangelical Christianity and with a high view of the Bible as the
infallible Word of God. The authors approach the theme of an
evolving creation from the vantage points of history of science,
cosmology, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, anthropology,
theology, and environmental studies.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
<greeneto@y...> wrote, in part:

> Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (2003)
> edited by Keith B. Miller
> http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/Book_Ann.html
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802805124
>
> from the website:

I happened to notice that Keith Miller has an article about taxonomy
on his website.  In a brief comment there, he writes:

> There is considerable ferment now within the field
> of taxonomy because of conflicting philosophies of
> classification, and different perceptions of which
> patterns in the history of life should be reflected
> in the taxonomic hierarchy (Eldredge & Cracraft,
> 1980; Schoch, 1986).

I think that may have something to do with understanding the context
of anything Colin Patterson (a very controversial "transformed
cladist") had to say about such things; something we have discussed
on this list in days gone by.

I also noticed that Keith Miller is teaching a course this semester
entitled "Natural Disasters".

That may be something Keith Sisman might want to look into.  He might
be able to take it by correspondence and test his "recent demise of
dinosaurs by a space object" theory.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@w...> wrote:

> I also noticed that Keith Miller is teaching a course
> this semester entitled "Natural Disasters".
>
> That may be something Keith Sisman might want to look
> into.  He might be able to take it by correspondence
> and test his "recent demise of dinosaurs by a space
> object" theory.

Actually, Keith Sisman might find Keith Miller's course on the "Age
of Dinosaurs" more relevant to his theory.

The schedule for that course indicates there is a specific section
on "Extinction of the Dinosaurs".  That would probably fit in well
with Keith Sisman's own, yet to be published, theories about that.

Maybe Keith Sisman could get Keith Miller to collaborate with him on
his book and "recent demise of dinosaurs" theories??

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Nelta,

I just noticed that, according to published reports, that Alabama
preacher is supposed to be putting on his show in Houston on November
14, 15, and 16th.

The number to call is (281) 492-1219 for more local (Houston)
information.  Don't know who that is; a Houston church of sorts, I
guess.

Have you gotten the word about that big to-do yet?

Maybe you could start making plans and consider, or have someone you
know down there, consider trying to get an official word from him
concerning some little matters of historical note and public interest.

Such as:

> 1. Bert's admission, explanation and
> correction about his false claim that
> the CRSQ letter was my "feeble attempt"

> 2. Bert's source for his Maury statue claim

> 3. Bert's role in the demise of my first
> little discussion list

> 4. Bert's admission, explanation and
> correction concerning the mysterious
> disappearance earlier this year of his
> 14,000,000 tons per year cosmic dust
> claim

It just might give me a little something to look forward to.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

I also notice that Brad Harrub, Ph.D. is supposed to be in Midwest
City, OK this weekend [phone (405) 732-0393].  That's only a few
miles from where I live.

HMMM!  Do you think I could work up the gumption to attend that and
ask Brad if he is the one that was a short-time member of my first
little discussion list and what he knows about what became of that
list.

That is, possibly in addition to the following outstanding queries:

> 1. Bert's admission, explanation and
> correction about his false claim that
> the CRSQ letter was my "feeble attempt"
>
> 2. Bert's source for his Maury statue claim
>
> 3. Bert's role in the demise of my first
> little discussion list
>
> 4. Bert's admission, explanation and
> correction concerning the mysterious
> disappearance earlier this year of his
> 14,000,000 tons per year cosmic dust
> claim

I will have to give that some thought!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

I previously noted:

> In responding to my comments about my "Goliath of
> GRAS", Chad Seaton signed off with:
>
> > Chad
> > (sling and five smooth stones in hand)
>
> That being the case, I thought by now my "Goliath"
> would have heard more from Chad about that matter.
>
> Alas, no Chad! No "stones"??

Now it appears that others on BereanSpirit have taken note that maybe
Chad was not intending to engage the discussion about that song topic
he brought up there.  Perhaps it was also just an idle boast about
his "stones".

Chad has now written on BereanSpirit regarding the song matter, in
part:

> When I first sent out the request for thoughts
> . . . I sent out over 1200 e-mails. The response
> was slow at first, but generated a great deal of
> discussion, hundreds of replies, and not one single
> good argument to use the song.

> What does that tell us?

Perhaps it is the case that Chad has now sent out a call to his 1200
or so contacts to find out if anyone else has any "stones" worthy of
use against my little "Goliath of GRAS"; or even a single "stone".

There has been a great deal of discussion about my little "Goliath",
but not a single "stone" has been cast, only air balls (or is that
mixing the metaphors a little too much).

Chad, oh Chad, what might we expect from you concerning your claim to
have the "stones" necessary to slay my little "Goliath".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty