The Inquirer-Home
Comments
Wrong No. of the beast?

The almighty Wikipedia entry begs to differ on the No. of the beast!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast#616

posted by : Liam O'Flaherty, 17 November 2008 Complain about this comment
Get the popcorn!

This sounds like a script for a really bad horror movie — please forgive the pleonasm.

"Still, the Virginia-based Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which brought the case on behalf of the Amish farmers, says if the programme isn’t dealt with, some of its clients “may have to quit farming”."

> No, but they may have to buy a brain... and hope the Antichrist doesn't eat it after the RIFD-cattle opens a gateway to our mortal realm for it. Beware of the damned cows!

posted by : Alexko, 17 November 2008 Complain about this comment
Observed

it's interesting that they think that by merely artificially stopping the signs they can prevent what they themselves say they bible predicts, outwit god so to speak.
Amazing inconsistencies and weird logic is so much part of all religion isn't it

posted by : W.-, 15 November 2008 Complain about this comment
Bush, Blair, <insert your nut job here>: Bring It On

"Christian religious fundamentalists ... reckon all this electronic tagging symbolises ... the coming of the antichrist"

Isn't that supposed to happen at the 'end of days' just before christ appears or some such. You would think the bible-bashers would want to hurry that along. They really do believe in that stuff, don't they?

posted by : Mini, 15 November 2008 Complain about this comment
Tagging makes it harder to claim grants for cattle that you "borrowed" from your neighbour.

Some few farmers "borrow" their neighbour's cattle when the grant assessor is visiting. This means instead of having 40 cows in the field, they now have 120. Thus they get grants for 120.

This is how farmers make a living in Europe, iirc it's about £40 a year for each sheep. If you have 3,000 sheep then that's £120,000 a year. Not bad eh? But you try looking after 3,000 sheep, you will work your socks off.

RFID tagging means the guy can turn up anytime, wave his RFID detector wand and get a count of the cattle. He can do this while driving along if the fields are accessible by road, which most are.

Ears are also clipped or marked when this is done, so the RFID fitter will know if someone is trying to register the same cow more than once.

posted by : interested_party, 15 November 2008 Complain about this comment
Good times?

Here's what I don't understand: If all these things that they fight like "RFID = mark of the beast" and "environmental pacts = world government" mean that the rapture/end of days is coming...why do they resist it? I understand not getting themselves into it, and warning others not to me marked or whatever, but why resist their implementation by the heathens and non-believers? Don't they want the Lord to end the world so they and their loved ones can all go to heaven for eternity? Don't they want Jesus to come back?

Or are they scared because they know they're not gonna get in ;)

posted by : lainofthewired, 14 November 2008 Complain about this comment
Save money

Make DNA testing more prevalent and simply DNA ID every cow. Then you can trace every part, not just the tag, which can and will be manipulated. 

But then again there would be no kickback for the Senators who pushed the RFID tag through.

posted by : Vinster, 14 November 2008 Complain about this comment

Amish farmers protest Mark of the Beast RFID tagging

aboutus
Advertisement
Subscribe to INQ newsletters
Advertisement
INQ Poll

Authorities in several countries raided Megaupload recently, shut down all of its services, seized hundreds of servers and arrested several of its executives on criminal charges.

Do you think the move was justified?