But you see, Booby, just your Mommy does, you only tell the part that seems to support your most ardent desires. Here's what the news story actually said, according to your link:
"We're going to have something in the way of a major nuclear event in this country," said Buffett, the firm's chief operating officer. "It will happen. Whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years ... it's virtually a certainty."
Buffett is engaging in very reasonable speculation -- the same speculation that countless others have been doing since 1945. He may well be right. If he is, that's the breaks.
But no matter what, nuclear destruction will have no more to do with "the end" as predicted by idiot Jehovah's Witnesses like you than World War I did, or WWII, or any other war of this century, or any other disaster, or anything else that might appear to relate the usual false predictions of idiot prognosticators to real events. Any resemblance is demonstrably coincidental.
Why do I say "demonstrably"? Because every prediction that idiots like you and the Society and its immediate forebears have made, from 1860 onward, has failed completely. And of course, all of these are based on "the assured expectation of realities though not beheld", which goes to show how much value your faith really has.
Despite these 100% failures, idiot prognosticators remain believers. They simply redesign their beliefs so as to retain an expectation of the desired disastrous future. An interesting comment on this redesign is made by Carl Sagan in Broca's Brain, pages 332-333:
Doctrines that make no predictions are less compelling than those which make correct predictions; they are in turn more successful than doctrines that make false predictions. But not always. One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and -- while the events of that year were certainly of some importance -- the world does not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, "Oh, did we say ?1914'? So sorry, we meant ?2014.' A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvenienced in any way." But they did not. They could have said, "Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth." But they did not. Instead, they did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the face of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough-mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration were needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry. [Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain, Ballantine Books, New York, 1982, p. 332]
I can think of few things on this board more "remarkably resistant to rational inquiry" than the mind of Booby You Know.
AlanF
