On Wed, 13 Mar 96 21:56:46 EST you wrote to Jim Bell
>JB>It does if those beliefs included the absolute, "Thou shalt not
>>murder." Naturalists, by definition, cannot affirm such absolutes.
>>It would be interesting to hear a naturalist try to make the
>>argument, "Killing Jews is a bad thing." If you'd like to try,
>>please do. I'd like to see what such an argument looks like.
SJ>In fact moral relatavists do have an absolute - it is called moral
>relativism! Does Tim believe there are no moral absolutes? Absolutely!
>:-)
SJ>But the real question is not "Is killing Jews a bad thing?" but "Is
>killing humans a bad thing?" Now one might argue that this is not an
>absolute because killing in self-defence, or mercy-killing, etc.,
>makes killing justified in some circumstances. But this merely
>establishes the absolute general principal that killing humans is a
>bad thing, even though there may be some special circumstances, that
>mitigate its badness.
OK. Let us look at a "special circumstance", Steve. Let's look in
the Book of Joshua, Chapter 10. Steve, if you haven't actually read this
chapter before, AND felt the full horror of it, do so now.
1 Now it came to pass, when Adonizedek king of Jerusalem had heard how
Joshua had taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed it; as he had done to Jericho
and her king, so he had done to Ai and her king; and how the inhabitants of
Gibeon had made peace with Israel, and were among them;
2 That they feared greatly, because Gibeon [was] a great city, as one of
the royal cities, and because it [was] greater than Ai, and all the men
thereof [were] mighty.
3 Wherefore Adonizedek king of Jerusalem sent unto Hoham king of Hebron,
and unto Piram king of Jarmuth, and unto Japhia king of Lachish, and unto
Debir king of Eglon, saying,
4 Come up unto me, and help me, that we may smite Gibeon: for it hath made
peace with Joshua and with the children of Israel.
5 Therefore the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the
king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, the king of Eglon,
gathered themselves together, and went up, they and all their hosts, and
encamped before Gibeon, and made war against it.
6 And the men of Gibeon sent unto Joshua to the camp to Gilgal, saying,
Slack not thy hand from thy servants; come up to us quickly, and save us,
and help us: for all the kings of the Amorites that dwell in the mountains
are gathered together against us.
7 So Joshua ascended from Gilgal, he, and all the people of war with him,
and all the mighty men of valour.
8 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear them not: for I have delivered them
into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.
9 Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, [and] went up from Gilgal all
night.
10 And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great
slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to
Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.
11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, [and] were in the
going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven
upon them unto Azekah, and they died: [they were] more which died with
hailstones than [they] whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.
12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the
Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had
avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of
Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go
down about a whole day.
14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD
hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.
15 And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.
16 But these five kings fled, and hid themselves in a cave at Makkedah.
17 And it was told Joshua, saying, The five kings are found hid in a cave
at Makkedah.
18 And Joshua said, Roll great stones upon the mouth of the cave, and set
men by it for to keep them:
19 And stay ye not, [but] pursue after your enemies, and smite the
hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the LORD
your God hath delivered them into your hand.
20 And it came to pass, when Joshua and the children of Israel had made an
end of slaying them with a very great slaughter, till they were consumed,
that the rest [which] remained of them entered into fenced cities.
21 And all the people returned to the camp to Joshua at Makkedah in peace:
none moved his tongue against any of the children of Israel.
22 Then said Joshua, Open the mouth of the cave, and bring out those five
kings unto me out of the cave.
23 And they did so, and brought forth those five kings unto him out of the
cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the
king of Lachish, [and] the king of Eglon.
24 And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua,
that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of
the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks
of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of
them.
25 And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of
good courage: for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies against whom ye
fight.
26 And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five
trees: and they were hanging upon the trees until the evening.
27 And it came to pass at the time of the going down of the sun, [that]
Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, and cast them into
the cave wherein they had been hid, and laid great stones in the cave's
mouth, [which remain] until this very day.
28 And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the
sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls
that [were] therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king of Makkedah
as he did unto the king of Jericho.
29 Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah,
and fought against Libnah:
30 And the LORD delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of
Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that
[were] therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as
he did unto the king of Jericho.
31 And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish,
and encamped against it, and fought against it:
32 And the LORD delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it
on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the
souls that [were] therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah.
33 Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him
and his people, until he had left him none remaining.
34 And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him; and
they encamped against it, and fought against it:
35 And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword,
and all the souls that [were] therein he utterly destroyed that day,
according to all that he had done to Lachish.
36 And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron;
and they fought against it:
37 And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king
thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that [were] therein;
he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but
destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that [were] therein.
38 And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought
against it:
39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and
they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the
souls that [were] therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron,
so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah,
and to her king.
40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of
the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining,
but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel
commanded.
And just so we are absolutely sure who bears the responsibility for this
genocide, we'll have verse 40 again.
40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of
the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining,
BUT UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THAT BREATHED, AS THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL
COMMANDED.
So, would you care to explain what was so "special" about the
"circumstances" surrounding these wholesale slaughters, that God found it
necessary to condone, and even participate in the slaughter of women,
children and babies. And not even just condone and participate, but even
perform one of the greatest miracles ever attributed to Him in order to
ensure that there was enough time to ensure that one particular act of
genocide was fully completed.
It would appear that, at least according to God as revealed in the Book
of Joshua, the God-commanded wholesale slaughter of humans is not
necessarily a bad thing. Like, for instance, if God's people covet the land
of those they intend to slaughter?
But of course, we know better. We know that what the Israelites did
was an unmitigated evil. An unmitigated evil commanded and assisted by the
Judaeo-Christian God. If the above is true, then my atheist/agnostic
morality is higher than the morality of Joshua and the God of Joshua,
because I know that what they did was unjustifiable, and they thought that
what they did was justifiable.
Can you imagine what it would be like now if the U.S.A., or some other
nuclear power, was governed by people who condone what God and Joshua did to
Ai, Jerico, Hebron, etc.? How safe could the rest of the world reasonably feel?
SJ>C.S. Lewis wrote:
>
>"I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent
>behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations
>and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is
>not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but
>these have never amounted to anything like a total difference.
I would suggest that Joshua's morality concerning the sanctity of human life
was totally different to what is considered appropriate today. Of course,
the racist element of right-wing "Christianity" have a precedent in Joshua.
>If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say,
>the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and
>Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to
>each other and to our own....for our present purpose I need only ask
>the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean.
>Think of a country where people were admired for running away in
>battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people
>who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a
>country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards
>what people you ought to be unselfish to- whether it was only your own
>family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always
>agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has
>never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have
>one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not
>simply have any woman you liked." (Lewis C.S., "Mere Christianity",
>Fount: London, 1977 reprint, p17)
Have men "always agreed" that you slaughter your enemies down to the last
man, woman, child and baby, as the ancient Israelites did?
>TI>However, as you mention above, that does not prevent one from
>>judging according to an agreed standard of outcome (or an agreed upon
>>set of starting axioms). The theistic moralist claims that this
>>agreed upon set of standards comes from an ultimate source. An
>>agnostic would question the source but may agree with the theist upon
>>a common set of standards.
>JB>The first problem is that the "agreement" is not based upon
>>anything--it could come from whim, appetite or a bad day at the
>>office. Therefore, one may dissent from such "agreements" without
>>any moral counter-argument to stop him.
SJ>Yes. Besides Tim thinks that the "theistic moralist" is proposing
>something different from what the "agnostic" believes. In fact it
>isn't - that's the whole point. Both the "theist" and the "agnostic"
>believe the central moral teachings of Moses (the ten commandments)
>and Jesus ("love your neighbour as yourself". The "theist" and
>"agnostic" do mostly agree on the *content* of the moral law, what
>they disagree on its its *source*.
>JB>The second problem, of course, is that agnostic/atheist who does
>>agree is merely borrowing the moral capital of theism, but without
>>paying any interest.
SJ>I don't disagree, but after reading C.S. Lewis, I would say that the
>"agnostic/atheist" agrees with the moral teaching of "theism" because
>it is also the moral teaching of the "agnostic/atheist"! The "moral
>capital of theism" is in its stewardship of the authoritative record
>of the moral law, not in it's monopoly ownership of it. Paul reminds
>his readers in that Rom 2:14-15 that "Gentiles (ie. pagans), who do
>not have the law" can "do by nature things required by the law..."
>and "...they show that the requirements of the law are written on
>their hearts..."
>TI>Ultimately, the acceptance of moral standards and functional
>>criteria are based on personal beliefs, whether one is a theist or a
>>"moral relativist".
>JB>This is undisputed. The point is that the theist can sustain
>>"moral standards" logically. The naturalist cannot. Standards
>>cannot exists. That why it is called the naturalistic "fallacy."
>>And personal beliefs can be explored for their logical consistency,
>>or lack thereof.
SJ>I would argue "moral standards" are more than mere "personal beliefs".
>They are built-in. We are "hard-wired" with moral natures. Only a
>theist can account for this - we were made moral in the image of a
>holy God. The "naturalist" cannot rationally account for his "moral
>standards", since to him they are just "personal beliefs":
What leads you to believe that only a theist can account for our
"hard-wired" moral natures? Would it not be more reasonable to
believe that the basis for our common morality is in our genes? This
appears to be reasonable, since I understand that a number of inheritable
(and therefore genetically based) mental disorders manifest as amorality.
And if the basis for our common morality is in our genes, from whence
did it come? Was it a direct gift from God? Or was it an indirect gift
of God via the evolutionary process? Or was it simply necessary that,
as a social animal, we, like every other social animal, either behaved
altruistically, mostly to our close relatives and less to the rest of
our group, or we ceased to be social?
How can we test these and other alternatives? Based on the teachings of the
Bible, Joshua and some other huge moral lapses notwithstanding, we are
expected to behave altruistically to all people. But IS that how we behave,
especially under stress, when our real natures are revealed? No, we revert
to the moral nature within, i.e. me and my family first, my tribe second,
anyone else with whom I share significant common purpose third, anyone with
whom I have no disagreement fourth, and anyone who stands against us can
expect a fight.
If our moral nature was to behave altruistically to all, then theists could
account for it. More, I think evolutionists would be very hard-pressed to
account for it. But the true nature of our altruism/morality, which is
often only revealed under stress, has so much in common with other social
mammals (those who are most genetically similar to me come first, and so on),
and so little in common with Biblical teaching, that I think the conclusion
is obvious.
Our morality is a product of evolution. The only questions that remain are,
(1) Was/is God involved in evolutionary processes?
(2) If so, to what extent?
These are theological/philosophic questions, the answers to which we
disagree without significant hope of agreement.
What I am hoping that you will see is that, while our moral IDEALS, i.e.
what we aspire to, might be derived from religious or cultural influences,
our moral actions when stressed are the product of the genetically-based
altruism we inherited from our social-mammal ancestors.
SJ>"...Objective morality makes sense if real moral laws or oughts exist
>and if normative, moral properties like rightness, goodness, worth,
>and dignity exist in acts (the act of honoring one's parents) and
>things (persons and animals have worth). If physicalism is true as a
>worldview, there are no moral properties or full-blooded oughts.
>Physical states just are, and one physical state causes or fails to
>cause another physical state. A physical state does not morally
>prescribe that another physical state ought to be. If physicalism is
>true, oughts are not real moral obligations telling us what one should
>do to be in conformity with the moral universe. Rather, "ought"
>serves as a mere guide for reaching a socially accepted or
>psychologically desired goal (e.g., "If one wants to have pleasure and
>avoid pain, then one 'ought' to tell the truth") . Moral imperatives
>become grounded in subjective preferences on the same level as a
>preference for Burger King over McDonald's." (Moreland J.P., "Scaling
>the Secular City", Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, p93)
I would suggest that "oughts" or "moral imperatives" have much less to
do with subjective preferences and much more to do with our genetic
inheritance. They are imperatives because they REALLY ARE part of us.
All that our religion and culture does is to formalise and, perhaps,
polish them a little. But notice how quickly the formalities and the
polish disappear in times of great stress. If you doubt that, look at how we
honour those few people who DO hold the high moral ground under great stress.
>TI>Nor can the "oughts" of one religion (or set of religious beliefs)
>>logically displace those of another religion.
>JB>That's not correct. Read, for example, -Truth in Religion- by
>>Mortimer Adler. It is quite possible to make reasoned arguments
>>about religion and absolute truth, but the poor naturalist cannot
>>even enter the discussion!
SJ>Tim's argument might be true if all religions were equally valid. But
>even he might believe a religion that taught as its highest truth
>"love your neigbour as yourself" (Judeo-Christianity) was more true
>than one which had temple prostitutes and sacrificed its children to
>aidols as did the Canaanites and the Incas.
Just step back a bit and you will see temple prostitutes and child sacrifice
for what they really were. Like much associated with religion, they were
about the exercise and flaunting of power.
Temple prostitutes were, as much as anything, a source of income and, no
doubt, a bit of blatant "Rank hath its privileges" for the priests. Child
sacrifice was simply a brutal exercise of absolute power. If a leader could
cause people to sacrifice their children on his command, then he knew that
his power over them was absolute. And, equally or more importantly, they
knew it too!
But all of this talk of temple prostitutes and child sacrifice is little
more than a diversion. There are no temple prostitutes or child sacrifices
in Judaism, Islam or Buddhism. How does Christianity substantiate a claim to
greater validity than those?
SJ>But leaving that aside, Christianity has a logical reason for claiming
>that its "religion" not only can but must "displace those of another
>religion" - it's Founder claimed to be God
It amazes me how Christians can make definitive statements about what "it's
Founder", meaning Jesus, claimed. There is not one word written by Jesus
available anywhere. Jesus IS REPORTED TO HAVE "claimed to be God and proved
it by dying and rising again". Jesus is ALSO reported, in Acts 2:22 to have been
"Jesus of Nazareth, a *MAN* approved of God among you by miracles and wonders
and signs, which *GOD DID BY HIM* in the midst of you" (emphasis mine).
Notice, not "God", but "a man approved by God".
Notice also, not "miracles and wonders and signs, which he did", but
"miracles and wonders and signs, which *GOD DID BY HIM*".
And, in verse 24, not "who hath raised himself up", but "whom God hath
raised up".
Mind you, the real founder of Christianity, St Paul, left a great deal of
written claims for the record.
SJ> and proved it by dying and rising again.
"Proved" is not appropriate for an unsubstantiated claim such as this.
SJ>Atheists might deny that Jesus did rise from the dead,
It may surprise you to know that some people who claim to be Christians have
considerable doubts about occurrence of this alleged event, also.
SJ>but they cannot deny that Christians can claim that their "oughts" can
>"logically displace those of another religion."
Presumably, in a free society, Christians can claim what they like. I fail
to see how Christians could provide strong support for a claim that their
"oughts" can "logically displace" the "oughts" of Buddhism, for example.
>TI>I do not quite understand how moral relativism appears as such
>>a boogey-man to some. Is it the idea that without knowable
>>moral absolutes, everyone will do exactly as they please with
>>complete disregard to others? How long could one expect such
>>actions to be tolerated in any society?
>JB>Your faith in human society is, I think, a tad naive. I wonder
>>what you think of the direction of our own society is, morally
>>speaking. Without consensus what society tolerates can just as
>>easily be, once again, something as repugnant as genocide. Only the
>>theist can tell us why it IS repugnant.
SJ>Agreed. The point is that "moral relativism" is as much a
>"boogey-man" to the atheist/agnostic as to the theist:
SJ>"But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who
>says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the
>same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise
>to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining
>'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say
>treaties do not matter but then, next minute, they spoil their case by
>saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair
>one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as
>Right and Wrong - in other words, if there is no Law of Nature-what is
>the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not
>let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they
>really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?' (Lewis C.S.,
>"Mere Christianity", Fount: London, 1977 reprint, p18)
This quote is not about the "Law of Nature"; it is about implicit and
explicit social contracts. In other words, a "right and wrong" determined by
the consensus of those who agree to be bound by it, rather than those who
impose it in the name of one God or another.
And, to answer Lewis's question, the difference between a fair treaty and an
unfair treaty is that, in a fair treaty both parties derive an outcome that
satisfies them under the circumstances that exist at the time and can
reasonably be forseen, while in an unfair treaty one party derives an
outcome that does not satisfy them, due to the undue influence of the other
party.
>JB>And with individuals, it is simply a matter of cost-benefit. If I
>>can get away with some action, currently illegal, why not?
SJ>Indeed, why not? The eleventh commandment "Thou shalt not get caught!"
>is the logical consequence of atheism. Yet most atheists are probably
>highly moral people.
Which is why your "11th Commandment" crack would be highly insulting to most
atheists. From where I sit, "Thou shalt not get caught!" is the logical
consequence of the Christianity practiced by some of those who preach quite
different standards on TV. Though shalt not get caught with prostitutes.
Though shalt not get caught having affairs with church members. Though shalt
not get caught with thy hand in the till (up to the shoulder). Thou shalt
not get caught cheating on thy taxes.
Who practices the highest morality?
A person who behaves morally, knowing that if they commit an immoral act
that goes undiscovered by people, they have "gotten away with it".
Or a person who behaves morally, knowing that, because of eternal,
comprehensive, supernatural vigilance, they have no chance of getting away
with anything.
SJ>The point is that they are *inconsistently*
>moral, whereas theists can be are *consistently* moral.
In theory, perhaps, but I've yet to see a theist that was actually more
consistently moral than the most moral atheists I know. In fact I would go
as far as to claim that an atheist is capable of more consistent morality
than a Christian, since an atheist knows that he can blame no one else for
moral lapses other than himself, whereas a Christian can blame "the sinful
nature he inherited from Adam".
>TI>Now let me put the shoe on the other foot: I can only hope that
>>someone's vision of religious absolutism doesn't lead to hurting
>>other people -- And this hope has been betrayed in the past.
>JB>Define "hurt." Define "betrayed." In naturalist syntax, of
>>course. But if you borrow the moral capital of theism to agree about
>>"hurt," then I would share your hope.I would also point out that
>>theistic moral arguments have alleviated great pain and suffering,
>>and still do.
SJ>Yes. Tim claims there are no "oughts" yet in the next breath he uses
>them. Why is "religious absolutism" bad? If all is relative, then
>"religious absolutism" is just another equally valid belief. And why
>is "hurting other people" bad? He has just claimed that we can't
>even say that the "extermination" of an entire nation "the Jews" is an
>"absolutely `bad' thing", so I can't see how he can claim that simply
>"hurting other people" is bad. And what's this about "hope" that "has
>been betrayed". What's wrong with betraying people's hopes, if there
>are no moral absolutes?
SJ>Also, again Tim assumes that all brands of "religious absolutism" are
>equal.
All brands of absolutism, religious or political, are equally unwilling to
allow certain groups of people to contribute to the formulation of the
controls placed on their behaviour. Democracy is not God's preferred
political system; theocracy is!
SJ> Christian "religious absolutism" has as its highest principle
>"You shall love your neighbour as yourself". If Christianity was in
>control and acted according to its highest principle, then this world
>would be heaven on Earth, but with atheists in control its rapidly
>becoming the opposite!
When has Christianity EVER "acted according to its highest principle" when
it has been "in control", i.e. wielding dominant political power? Of course,
"neighbour" can be a very relative term, when politically appropriate.
>TI>The simple fact that there is a God does not imply that there
>>must be ultimate moral accountability (Heck, it doesn't even mean that
>>God is moral).
>JB>Once you admit there is a God, the question becomes "What sort of
>>God?" It is another inquiry, but one that is consistent with the
>>logic employed in answering the first. Suffice to say, I think you
>>can get to the moral God quite easily.
SJ>Yes. Again Tim assumes that all "Gods" are equal. The God of the
>Bible is a "moral God", who demanded that His people be moral:
SJ>Lev 19:2 "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: 'Be
>holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy' "; Mt 5:48 "Be perfect,
>therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
No, Steve. The "God of the Bible" is a jealous, genocidal maniac whose
genocidal exploits have been well documented in the Bible.
SJ>With a "moral God" like that there *is* "ultimate moral
>accountability"! The point is that naturalists believe in their heart
>of hearts that they are morally accountable (witness Tim's Freudian
>slips above), but they don't know who they are accountable to.
What do you mean that naturalists "don't know who they are accountable to"?
You presume too much. We are accountable to ourselves, we are accountable to
each other, we are accountable to future generations, and, in a very broad
sense, we are accountable to the Earth's ecosystems that sustain and enrich
our lives.
>Theists don't have that problem. Theism fits man's moral nature like
>a glove fits a hand.
Of course it does. Just as a glove was MADE by a man to fit a man's hand, so
theism was MADE by man to fit man's moral nature.
And then, of course, there's "survival of the fittest". Theisms that didn't
fit man's moral nature didn't survive. More importantly, theisms that didn't
adapt (dare I say EVOLVE) to meet the changing peripheral needs of humanity
- I don't think our core needs have changed much, if at all - also didn't
survive.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------