Tim Daneluk

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've got too much time on my hands :-).
>
> I just did a Google search on postings to this group by Tim in the last
> 12 months. There were 116. 5 or 6 were on woodworking topics based on
> the subject line.
>
> Just to be fair, since I've been known to get drawn into these off topic
> discussions, I checked my own history. At least the first 128 Google
> showed me (it omitted 202 "similar" postings). Of the 128, better than
> 60 were on woodworking or responding to things like Toms stories, beer
> jokes, computer questions, etc..
>
> So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
> time.
>
> I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
> killfile :-).
>
>
> --
> It's turtles, all the way down

Why would anyone care who you killfile . We [most of us] have the ability to
make our own choices.

In article <[email protected]>, TWS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I agree completely. The fall of the iron curtain in Europe was
> largely due to the access to uncensored information to its population.
> This is a huge crack in China's wall...

Google cooperating with the communist regime in China is actually
subverting the communist regime in China?

Wow! Who knew?

Thanks for enlightening me! I will go forthwith and see if I can
participate with censorsing information in other repressive regimes so
I can subvert them while making fistfulls of cash!

Black is white.

War is peace.

I love Big Brother.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Joe Barta
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Also try to see how the Google-China compromise, while not
> exactly what we would like, is as good as we can get FOR NOW... and it
> can be a step in a good direction.

Bullshit. Google could have told the Chinese government to go fuck
themselves.

They decided to suck tit rather than stand up to the principles the
company was founded on.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

> <Sigh> OK, so what is *your* answer to getting the repressive policies
> of the Chinese abated. More cultural exchanges? Folk dancing? Asking
> them "pretty please"? Cutting off trade?


Cutting off trade.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

> One of the noteable *failures* of the Bush administration has been to
> not put massive pressure on the Saudis in this regard, for example.


I agree with this, as long as you add the Clinton, Bush 1, and Carter
administrations to the list of failures. And add Egypt to the list of
countries.

djb

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In the second case, it is unclear is I assented
> to what was written after my exit. In the first
> case it appears probable that I never read
> the comments.

In the second case, nobody noticed nor cared.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Joe Barta
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Gee, now there's a workable idea. I say GWB just pulls his head out of
> his ass and cuts off all trade with China until they behave the way
> we'd like. Such a simple solution. I wish I had your grasp of the
> situation and your talent for problem solving.

It worked with South Africa. But it was our Prime Minister at the time,
not your President, leading the boycott.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Java
Man <[email protected]> wrote:

> Or perhaps Google ripoffs emerging in China, with no protection for
> Google's IP?

What IP? Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet
aggregating. You or I could start doing it tomorrow.

All Google has that you don't is a head start, a supoena to appear
before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share value than they had
a couple of days ago.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes, and then the Chinese government would have blocked access to Google
> altogether.

Oh. Then it's far, far, better that a US company participate in the
censorship and profit by doing so.

Thanks for clearing that up, Doug.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Interesting spin. Take a few members of congress acting rudely and it is
> Bush's fault, Bush has a credibility problem. Kind of hard to hold that
> ground when the other party deigned to use Ted Kennedy to act as head
> inquisitor of Judge Allito on the subject of ethics. You just can't make
> this stuff up.

The latest leftoid conspiracy theory that has made my top 5 is that the
*lack* of Christian right-wing protest against Brokeback Mountain is a
vast Christian right-wing conspiracy to negatively affect the box
office returns of what's just a mediocre movie by NOT protesting it.

On the bright side, finally we have a western where the good guys get
it in the end...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, todd
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I tell you what, let's do the same for the middle east and
> just boycott Iran and Saudi Arabia while we're at it.

Works for me. Add Egypt and Syria to the list.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The most a 3rd party
> can ever do is create the environment in which Democracy can take hold -
> i.e., Remove impediments like Sadaam and the Taliban.

i.e. Remove a totalitarian regime, but not if they're Chinese and
there's a shitload of money to be made...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

> China has not thus far demonstrated any animus to the US

Are you aware of how much of your federal debt they own?

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Why is China different?

Sigh...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Java
Man <[email protected]> wrote:

> But you're suggesting that Google's only advantage is a head start

Where did I suggest that Google's ONLY advantage was anything? That's
bullpuckey.

> Do you know for a fact that Google's "back office" has no know-how
> advantage that they want to keep secret?

Yes. Or, uh... No.

A stupid answer for a stupid question... How would I know what Google
wants to keep secret? Don't be an idiot, or play one on usenet.

Google aggregates publicly available information.

The information is public.

And available.

Go aggregate it. Oops! Google has a head start! But they may not have
legally protectable IP!

So your point is... That they have an advantage because of their head
start?

Sigh...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Java
Man <[email protected]> wrote:

> Do you consider the subpoena and the loss of share value to be among
> Google's advantages? If not, ALL that's left -- according to you -- is
> a head start.

As you quoted, I said: "All Google has that you don't is a head start,
a supoena to appear before the US Congress, and $19 billion less share
value than they had a couple of days ago."

Which of those items do you consider to be Google's advantage? The head
start?

> > > Do you know for a fact that Google's "back office" has no know-how
> > > advantage that they want to keep secret?
> >
> > Yes. Or, uh... No.
> >
> > A stupid answer for a stupid question... How would I know what Google
> > wants to keep secret? Don't be an idiot, or play one on usenet.
>
> If you don't know what Google wants to keep secret, why did you say:
>
> ------------------------
> "Google isn't doing anything proprietary in its web and usenet
> aggregating. You or I could start doing it tomorrow."
> -------------------------

What does that have to do with anything that Google may have as a
secret?

> So let's recap.

Yes, let's.

> - You originally said all Google has is a head start

Yes.

> but you followed
> up denying you had said it.

I did not do that.

> - You also said Google isn't doing anything proprietary

Correct

> but later
> admitted you didn't know what Google may be keeping secret.

Is Google keeping things secret? How do you know? If they are, the
secrets are SECRET, no? So if Google is keeping secrets, how would I
know what secrets they're keeping?

Admitting I don't know secret information (or even if it exists)
is damning exactly how? Even if it exists, it's a SECRET.

> - Finally, after you said that all Google has is a head start, you
> attributed the idea to me.

Where did I do that? Do you not understand the difference between the
assertive and the interrogative?

> What I want to know is why you did these things in a simple usenet
> discussion. Are you dishonest or just stupid?

No, I'm not. But you certainlly appear to be one of the two.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Java
Man <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's tough to get there when some won't acknowledge that Google has
> proprietary trade secrets which they want and need to protect.

Who's done that?

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Java
Man <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <030220061646286499%dave***@balderstone.ca>,
> dave***@balderstone.ca says...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Java
> > Man <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > It's tough to get there when some won't acknowledge that Google has
> > > proprietary trade secrets which they want and need to protect.
> >
> > Who's done that?
> >
> Who do you think?

Cite, please? I've neither said nor hinted I believe that.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Java
Man <[email protected]> wrote:

> What DID you mean by the quotes above?

I meant exactly what I wrote. No more and no less.

Google is not doing anything proprietary in their web and news
aggregating.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Java
Man <[email protected]> wrote:

> How does that square with your professed ignorance of what Google may
> want to keep secret?

What does anything they want to keep secret have to do with aggregating
web sites and news feeds?

----------------
aggregate
noun |?agrigit| |?øgr?g?t| |?agr?g?t|
1 a whole formed by combining several (typically disparate) elements :
the council was an aggregate of three regional assemblies.
€ the total number of points scored by a player or team in a series of
sporting contests : the result put the sides even on aggregate.
2 a material or structure formed from a loosely compacted mass of
fragments or particles.
€ pieces of broken or crushed stone or gravel used to make concrete, or
more generally in building and construction work.
adjective [ attrib. ] |?agrigit| |?agr?g?t|
formed or calculated by the combination of many separate units or
items; total : the aggregate amount of grants made.
€ Botany (of a group of species) comprising several very similar
species formerly regarded as a single species.
€ Economics denoting the total supply or demand for goods and services
in an economy at a particular time : aggregate demand | aggregate
supply.
verb |-?g?t| |?øgr??ge?t| |?agr?ge?t|
form or group into a class or cluster : [ intrans. ] the butterflies
aggregate in dense groups.
PHRASES
in ( the) aggregate in total; as a whole.
DERIVATIVES
aggregation |?agri?g? sh ?n| |?øgr??ge???n| |-?ge??(?)n| noun
aggregative |-?g?tiv| |?øgr??ge?d?v| |?agr?g?t?v| adjective
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin aggregat- Œherded together,¹
from the verb aggregare, from ad- Œtoward¹ + grex, greg- Œa flock.¹
----------------

Web spiders to gather page content are a dime a dozen. Capturing and
storing a news feed is trivial.

There is nothing proprietary about aggregating web site content and
news feeds.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Java
Man <[email protected]> wrote:

> I hope you didn't Google for that! ;-)

No, Mac OS X comes with a built-in dictionary application as well as
the ablity to look up words on the fly.

> IOW, you don't include processing aggregated content as being part of
> "aggregating web sites and news feeds"?

Correct.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Java
Man <[email protected]> wrote:

> I hope you're also boycotting products produced in China, just to be
> consistent.

In fact, yes. There are a number of countries that I refuse to buy
from, and some whose products I actively seek out.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Joe Barta
<[email protected]> wrote:

> You know, I've talked to people about that. On the one hand, they are
> quick to explain all the reasons why Made in China is "bad". But then
> they toddle their asses down to Walmart et al and proceed to buy
> cartloads of stuff made in China and all those other bad places.

At Christmas time this year, our local Co-op grocery store had Mandarin
oranges from both China and Japan, with the Chinese oranges selling for
$1.50 less per box.

I picked up a box of the Japanese oranges and was putting it in my cart
when an elderly gentleman asked "What's the difference, that you're
buying the more expensive box?"

I replied "Japan has a functioning democracy."

He raised his eyebrows, nodded, and went for the Japanese product as
well.

One box of oranges at a time...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Java
Man <[email protected]> wrote:

> Doing something about it requires the US policy makers to recognize that
> the country is sleepwalking into disaster, and must make smart and tough
> changes to head it off.

So the US is the only country that can do anything?

What arrogance...

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

todd wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
> > time.
> >
> > I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
> > killfile :-).
>
> If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
> public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call
> attention to yourself?
>

There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". That I daresay, is
why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
them to post about this week.

Posting a 'plonk' announcement creates a UseNet record that the
author's silence, in the future should not be considered indicative
of consent.

--

FF

"First, thank you for my very own thread."

You are to be congratulated, although you will have to search for the
initiation under a misspelled attribution.


"Second, Good Manners dictates that you mark this sort of thing OT, or
at
the very least mark it a META thread since it is NOT about WWing."

As you have not been particularly careful about this in your own
posting history I would not blow this horn too loudly.

"Third, you might continue your deep statistical analysis by examining
just how many OT threads I actually *start*. In my recollection, it
is few. But I will not sit back and watch other people pitch bad
ideas,
dangerous to my future, hence I get involved in OT threads. But
mostly, this is well after they are underway."

It would seem that you imply a distinction between the origination of
an OT thread and the participation in an OT thread. There are some of
us who would not embrace the distinction.

"Fourth, I rarely start or add to On-Topic threads because I have
little
useful to say there. I am a rookie WWer, having only done it for about

8 years and anything I might add would be of little value beyond the
expertise already found here."

This is actually the funniest statement that I have found, so far.
Google shows 148 postings by you to rec. woodworking, and as you claim
that few of these have to do with actual woodworking, and therefore are
OT, I am left to wonder at your persistance in expressing your views in
a forum where you, admittedly, have no special knowledge.

"Fifth, if this group gnerally practiced self-restraint and avoided OTs

and/or limited them to very short exchanges, I would observe this
without
reservation. In fact, most NGs I read do exactly this and I observe
the customs of the community. But you and your ilk cannot on the one
hand jump in with all of the ideological gas passing the characterizes
your posts and expect everyone else to observe a moment of silence in
your
honor. I've no idea what kind of human you are - perhaps we'd be
friendly
neighbors in the Real World - but by your testimony, I know your ideas
are pernicious and dangerous to Liberty, hence you get counterargument
from me and others. Lead by example, and I will be similarly still. "

Now, this is a very interesting expression of intent. Do you mean to
say that on; alt.smokers.pipes, comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.lang.python, rec.photo.equipment.medium-format, fa.freebsd.stable,
rec.photo.darkroom, comp.protocols.smb,
rec.photo.equipment.large-format, rec.photo.equipment.large-format,
comp.mail.sendmail, comp.lang.python.announce, gnu.emacs.bug,
alt.comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, comp.mail.sendmail, rec.photo.misc,
mailing.freebsd.ports, muc.lists.freebsd.stable - all of which
represent a subset of the newsgroups that you have been a participant
in, you have found the level of restraint greater than here on
rec.woodworking?

Would you care to have this proven to be false?

Is it really necessary?

Isn't the truth obvious?

Isn't it actually the case that you have made a Usenet career of
inserting yourself into groups where you have nothing to contribute and
only seek to call attention to yourself , without regard for the
culture of the groups that you violate?

You are a Usenet junky, Daneliuk.

You are also a conflict junky.

And your song has grown tired unto our ears.

Mr. Blanchard ("What does the turtle stand on?") has made a reasonably
polite inquiry; followed by a brace of fools who misunderstood his
intent.

I am not one who uses killfiles, but, if I did, you would be one of the
first in the bin.

Other than his misspelling of your name, for use in the blocking of
your posts, I believe him to be right on target.

Good Day, Sir.

I've looked at your posting history on Usenet and you seem to be both a
Usenet junky and a Conflict junky.

You have admitted that you have little to contribute to this newsgroup
- why don't you bugger off, then!

Mr. Blanchard ("What does the turtle stand on?") has made a reasonably
polite interrogative.

Other than the misspelling of your name, I see no reason not to use his
reasoning to add you to the killfile.

The brace of twits who missed the point can look forward to your posts
in the future.

I will not.

Entfillet wrote: snip<followed by a brace of fools who misunderstood
his
intent.>snip

I'll bet 90% of _all_ our problems result from this very
thing. But Mr. Blanchard has too much time on his hands, which can
lead to mischief. Internet mischief. The Googling of people! I suppose
now we've all googled Mr Blanchard. I for one look back on a lot of my
posts as an exercise in humiliation, at least that's my excuse for now.
A thicker skin may help, but not as much when the intent is obscured.
Or was his intent obscured at all? Tom

Bourbon. Crushed mint. Branch water. More ice than for most drinks.

Most anything neat, for me. But I have too much time on my hands(insert
smiley-face here). Tom

"I've exhibited *absolutely* more restraint in all but
rec.woodworking..."

KP to KP3.


"Years ago, there were some of these in some of
the photo groups but they were relatively few in number and not widely
practiced by the larger community AND they tended to die down pretty
quickly."

QP to QP3.


"In the vast majority of the aforementioned groups I have
stayed very much OT to either ask questions, answer questions (because
these are groups wherein I *do* have expertise to share), or make
OT comments."

KP3 to KP4.


"Yes the truth is quite obvious. OT postings are permitted / encouraged
/
nurtured so long as they contain the politically correct content that a

few self-anointed nannies have prescribed. When said nannies get backed

into a rhetorical corner by someone equal to their writing, the scream
"foul, you're OT." Sorry Sparky..."

QP3 to QP4.


"For example, I despised Clinton but you will not
find reams of OT threads I initiated to beat him up."

KBP to KBP3.


"Jaques, Fred, Watson, et al are very quick to howl about
any political topic they wish, and then howl again when they get
countering argument they cannot refute."

QB to KB4. ??

"f this group seriously wishes for OT threads to go away, I will honor
it in the same degree other members do."

QKn to QB4 (possible?)


" I am *very* much a part of the wreck culture..."

(Attempted castle move - denied)


"You cannot rationally chastise me for something I did not initiate..."

(Move denied - insufficient pieces.)


"I don't have to be a junky. I read and write rapidly, thereby making
the refutation of foul ideas a minor part of the day."

(Move denied - insufficient pieces..)


"I really am not trying to be a wise guy here."

(Game results in default.)


Yes, the notation is antiquated and the commentary is silly. So is the
argument.




Daneliuk is an admitted troll with a predeliction for political
pomposity. He has made no contribution to the woodworking knowledge of
the group and has made fun of Larry's turtles.

I am particularly incensed by his disrespect for the turtles.

I hope that you agree. Turtles should be respected.

Those notations were for your moves.

I was just watching.

Those notations were for your moves.

I was just watching.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2006 09:27:27 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >todd wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
> >> > time.
> >> >
> >> > I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
> >> > killfile :-).
> >>
> >> If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
> >> public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call
> >> attention to yourself?
> >>
> >
> >There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". That I daresay, is
> >why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
> >we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
> >them to post about this week.
> >
>
> Is that the current put-down that Mr Soros is telling you to use this
> month for any comments that don't fit into his worldview?

I don't recall any correspondence from any Mr Soros.

My guess is you mean George Soros:

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=george+soros&kgs=1&kls=0

--

FF

Joe Barta says:

"And to piss off one or two more... I encourage Tim D. to post and
comment to his his heart's content about whatever he wants. Personally
I find his comments to be thoughtful and intelligent and I enjoy
reading what he has to say."



Oh, Good!

Mr. Barta from alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.kerry,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, soc.culture.irish, alt.idiots,
alt.smokers.cigars, alt.html, soc.college.financial-aid,
alt.building.construction, alt.home.repair, etc., etc., etc. ... has
graced us with his opinion, so carefully constructed, so closely held
and studied.

entfillet wrote:... has
graced us with his opinion, so carefully constructed, so closely held
and studied.

Everybody's got one. Or two. Or thirteen. No reason to get touchy. Tom

"LOL -- you've been caught pretending to knowledge you do not possess.
Perhaps
you should have talked to a *real* chess player before you tried to
impersonate one, so that you'd have half a chance of succeeding."


I'm sorry that you did not see the humor in my characterizing Mr. D's
arguments as a series of lame and/or impossible moves. I would have
thought that the use of the outdated notation form would have given it
away. I would have thought that not being able to castle due to
"insufficent pieces" would have been the final straw but...apparently
not. I will try to be even less subtle in the future.

BTW - I let my USCF membership lapse a few years ago and so am
technically not rated any longer but, if you would like to stop by for
a game some time, that would be fine.

Bring money.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2006 20:21:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> ...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". That I daresay, is
> >> >why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
> >> >we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
> >> >them to post about this week.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is that the current put-down that Mr Soros is telling you to use this
> >> month for any comments that don't fit into his worldview?
> >
> >I don't recall any correspondence from any Mr Soros.
> >
> >My guess is you mean George Soros:
>
> My apologies,...

No problem, I just wanted to be sure we were talking
about the same person. I had thought it was James
Carville who was responsible for much of the Democratic
Party Platform in the recent past and Howard Dean today.

On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.

Of course, "Silence implies consent." is not a
put-down.


--

FF

todd wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > todd wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
> >> > time.
> >> >
> >> > I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
> >> > killfile :-).
> >>
> >> If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
> >> public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to
> >> call
> >> attention to yourself?
> >>
> >
> > There is an old adage "Silence implies consent".
>
> I doubt it's very applicable to a USENET newsgroup, where dozens of topics
> are being discussed at a any particular time. Does this mean that I can go
> back in the rec.ww archives and if I find a thread you have not posted in I
> can assume you consent to the content?

IMHO no, but *I* do not ascribe to the
adage, though I do note that many others
do.

Howver, suppose you find a two threads
that I did participate in. I exited one with
a 'plonk' and the plonked party followed
up with a number of statements that did
not previously appear in the thread.

In the other thread, I simply went away.

In the second case, it is unclear is I assented
to what was written after my exit. In the first
case it appears probable that I never read
the comments.

>
> > That I daresay, is
> > why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
> > we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
> > them to post about this week.
>
> I have no problem with people posting to off-topic threads. What I do have
> a problem with is hyprocrites. Here's another old adage: "And why do you
> look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is
> in your own eye?"

Irrelevent.

The distinction between starting off-topic
threads and replying in them is like the
distinction between punching somebody
in the nose and punching somebody in
the nose after he hits you first.

Some of us regard that to be a distinction
without a difference, some of us do not.

>
> > Posting a 'plonk' announcement creates a UseNet record that the
> > author's silence, in the future should not be considered indicative
> > of consent.
>
> Riiiight. Good thing everyone keeps track of who has plonked whom, just so
> we can keep the score up to date. No one cares that someone has been
> plonked.
>

Well I didn't think that up all by myself.
That is basicly what I remember from the
UseNet FAQ. Yes, at one time there was
only one.

--

FF

"Following is a sampling of ways of giving the move N-KB3 ( Nf3 in
algebraic) in descriptive notation, taken from books of different years
to illustrate the slow evolution of that notation system. Notice the
subtle changes that creep in virtually one letter at a time; apparently
too much change could not be tolerated all at once!

1614: The white king commands his owne knight into the third house
before his owne bishop. 1750: K. knight to His Bishop's 3d. 1837: K.Kt.
to B.third sq. 1848: K.Kt. to B's 3rd. 1859: K. Kt. to B. 3d. 1874: K
Kt to B3 1889: KKt -B3 1904: Kt-KB3 1946: N-KB3"

The History of Chess Notation

by Robert John McCrary

You might also want to look into Staunton's original style of notation.
Then too, Koch and Kieseritzky have their own styles, with Koch still
being used in international correspondence competition. Jaenisch is
worth a look.

Then again, you could simply sit there and taste your foot.

"Well, congratulations. You've demonstrated that you can use Google..."


Yes. You should see how many posts show up when a search is done for
posts to this newsgroup, using the search terms "Doug Miller" AND
"Asshole".

It seems I'm not the only one who has come to that conclusion.

todd wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > No problem, I just wanted to be sure we were talking
> > about the same person. I had thought it was James
> > Carville who was responsible for much of the Democratic
> > Party Platform in the recent past and Howard Dean today.
> >
> > On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
> > funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
> > who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
> > maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.
>
> Do you actually know who Pat Robertson is? Or did you just hear his name on
> Air America (assuming it hasn't gone off the air in your area)? I wouldn't
> necessarily put Pat in the neighborhood of kook fringe, but he certainly
> doesn't dictate policy for the Republican party.

I've watched Pat Robertson on the 700 Club, in interveiws,
and on his cooking show. I've seen him do the Faith-healing
fraud to raise money.

If you do not realize he is a cult leader then, as they say,
you must have drunk the kool-aid.

What is Air-America? Sounds like it is worth checking out.

--

FF

todd wrote:
>
> ...
>
> One of the many reasons why I will never be nominated for anything that
> would require Senate review is that I don't think I could physically sit in
> a chair and have The Swimmer question me on my ethics.
>

One presumes that is not one of the _primary_ reasons...

--

FF

"BTW, I noticed you didn't reply to my question: what was your last
USCF
rating?"

I'll be in your general area on business in mid March. How about we
play best of three for a hundred bucks? I can stay over for a Saturday
to do it but need to be back home by Sunday afternoon. It's enough
money to make it fun without calling the attention of our wives.

I'd suggest forty moves in two hours.

We'll shake for the white.

I'll be using algebraic notation. We can talk about the other
possibilities, then.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:59:28 -0600, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> ...
> >>
> >> On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
> >> funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
> >> who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
> >> maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.

I'll also add that from his bio it looks like George Soros made
his money honestly.

> >
> >Do you actually know who Pat Robertson is? Or did you just hear his name on
> >Air America (assuming it hasn't gone off the air in your area)? I wouldn't
> >necessarily put Pat in the neighborhood of kook fringe, but he certainly
> >doesn't dictate policy for the Republican party.
> >
> >
>
> You have to realize that in Fredfighter's world, the act of accusing
> those espousing ideas not in line with the congressional left or the NYT
> editorial page of being mindless robots directed by Rush Limbaugh no longer
> gets the desired reaction. Thus, he has had to cast about for someone at
> the fringes in order to attempt to denigrate those with whom he disagrees.
>

Splorf!

It looks like you never heard Pat Robertson speak.

How many people are in his 'Christian Coalition'?
How many watch _The 700 Club_?

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
> Guilt by association. Robertson was once a slighly provocative
> ultra-conservative with a religious fan base. He has aged into
> becoming a loon. No serious political platform is built around
> his personal insanity and suggesting so is just flatly wrong.
> Certainly the Republican party has to pay some homage' to the
> Religious Right - they are a considerable constituency - but that
> hardly makes him a principal in Republican policy setting.
>
> Personally, I find Robertson's lunacy far more entertaining than, say,
> Kennedy's (who is just another tired old drunk)...
> >


How many voters are in his 'Christian Coalition'?
How many watch _The 700 Club_?

If Pat Robertson comes out against a Republican candidate,
that candiddate loses.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2006 09:04:30 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:59:28 -0600, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
> >> >> funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
> >> >> who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
> >> >> maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.
> >
> >I'll also add that from his bio it looks like George Soros made
> >his money honestly.
> >
>
> Well, I suppose if you consider bankrupting third world nations by
> speculating on their currency and endangering the currencies of first tier
> nations like Britain via the same approach to be making money "honestly",
> then I suppose you can say that George Soros came by his money honestly.
>
>

Sounds like you know a lot about him. Can you point me to some
sources?

Here are some about Pat Robertson:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5339-2001Nov9&notFound=true

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/business.html

http://www.geocities.com/djsleeve/Diamonds.html

http://www.skeptictank.org/robem2.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A42413-2001Nov30

--

FF

Han wrote:
> [email protected] wrote in news:1139072998.475634.136800
> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > If Pat Robertson comes out against a Republican candidate,
> > that candiddate loses.
> >
> I didn't know Patty_boy was good for anything. Thanks for setting me
> straight.
>

No one is completely worthless. If nothing else, he can
serve as a bad example.

OTOH, he is reason why GWB got the Republican nomination
in 2000, instead of John McCain.

--

FF

I'd rather do this via email, but email to your address bounced.

As you may recall, some time ago, in a thread about 'Intelligent
Design'
in rec.woodworking you wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

>
> You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
> Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
> POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points -
> this includes Science.
>

Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?

--

FF

Other facts:
The universe revolved around the earth.
The earth is flat.
Sound barrier can not be broached.
ECT.

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

Dave



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Joe Barta wrote:
>
> ...
>
> And while some in the movement may not have a religious agenda, ID
> does seem to me suspiciously like warmed over Creationism.
>

You mean like the way an early draft of _Of People and Pandas_
was created by globally replacing 'Creation Science" with
"Intelligent Design"?

--

FF

> "TeamCasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Other facts:
>> The universe revolved around the earth.
>> The earth is flat.
>> Sound barrier can not be broached.
>> ECT.
>>
>> I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.
>>
>> Dave
>
> Nothing like a non-sequitor to prove your point.
>
> todd

Don't you mean non sequitur?
But yes, there are just to many things yet to be determined.
Dave



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "TeamCasa"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don't you mean non sequitur?
>
> Oh, looky, a spelling fLame.
>>But yes, there are just to many things yet to be determined.
>
> ROTFLMAO! You correct *his* spelling, then make a spelling error of your
> own.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Nobody is perfect~!
Dave



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
> >>>Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
> >>>POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points -
> >>>this includes Science.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
> >>comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
> >>'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
> >>off-topic at.
> >>
> >>I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.
> >>
> >>Can you direct me to your source?
> >
> >
> > That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big Bang
> > Theory, and offer sources, cites.
> >
> > I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine
> > the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say,
> > irrelevant^Wofftopic.
>
> You need to understand the context of the quote. Someone described ID as
> irrational "mumbo jumbo". I responded with the above quote as an example
> where non-provable assumptions served as the basis for *science*. It had
> nothing whatsoever to do with "undermining evolution" or "supporting
> ID". It had to do with trying to swat away this contention (implicit in
> much of that thread) that science is somehow epistemicly "purer" and/or
> that ID is an idiotic position.

However, as I pointed out in email and as was implied by my
comments at the time, the criticisms were not directed at the
Big Bang model. Rather they were directed at a straw man,
a misrepresentation of the Big Bang model, essentially the
'dumbed down' version such as one might see presented on
PBS.

IMHO, the weakest part of the Big Bang model is the underlying
assumption that physical law was always the same as our current
understanding of physical law.

As we have learned in the 20th century, physical law, as it was
understood in the 19th century, was proven to be incorrect regarding
conditions significantly different from everyday macroscopic
phenomena. When we explored the physics of the very small,
the very fast, and the very massive we found that physical law,
as it was previousl understood was a 'special cases' of more
general physical law. It should not surprise us if we find that
20th century physics is incorrect IRT the early universe--what
we observe to be physical law in the present univers is a special
case of more general physical law.

> In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
> is Science.
>

I suppose by that you mean that Science is based on faith in the
scientific method. On that point I have no issue.

However, the scientific method pwer se, is based on doubt.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> >> In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
> >>is Science.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I suppose by that you mean that Science is based on faith in the
> > scientific method. On that point I have no issue.
> >
> > However, the scientific method pwer se, is based on doubt.
>
> And the assumption of the sufficiency of Reason itself.
>

No. At best, that is only true for those scientists who believe
(as a matter of Faith) in the sufficiency of Science itself.

The sufficiency of Reason, with respect to Science follows
directly from the definition of Science. An understanding
that is beyond Reason, is beyond Scinece. Certainly one may
define a discipline that includes Science and considerations
outside of Reason, but to avoid confusion that other dscipline
should be called by a name other than 'Science'. Or, if one
insists on thus redefining 'Science' then one should assign a
new name to the old discipline.

Personally, I think that to combine science with metaphysics
is less useful than to combine woodworking with politics.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >><SNIP>
> >>
> >>>>In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
> >>>>is Science.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I suppose by that you mean that Science is based on faith in the
> >>>scientific method. On that point I have no issue.
> >>>
> >>>However, the scientific method pwer se, is based on doubt.
> >>
> >>And the assumption of the sufficiency of Reason itself.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No. At best, that is only true for those scientists who believe
> > (as a matter of Faith) in the sufficiency of Science itself.
> >
> > The sufficiency of Reason, with respect to Science follows
> > directly from the definition of Science. An understanding
> > that is beyond Reason, is beyond Scinece. Certainly one may
> > define a discipline that includes Science and considerations
> > outside of Reason, but to avoid confusion that other dscipline
> > should be called by a name other than 'Science'. Or, if one
> > insists on thus redefining 'Science' then one should assign a
> > new name to the old discipline.
> >
> > Personally, I think that to combine science with metaphysics
> > is less useful than to combine woodworking with politics.
> >
>
> I think perhaps we are talking past each other here. I only meant
> that the *efficacy* of Reason is presumed by Science.

I understood. That is why I disagree.

Science does not presume Reason to be sufficient. Science
is defined such that reason is sufficient

> That is,
> Science presumes Reason to be efficacious and thus sufficient to do
> _everything Science wants to do_ (not that Reason is sufficient for
> everything in general).

I do not agree that Science wants. Perhpas this is the crux
of our disagreement.

> If this were not so, Science would be
> looking to add other mechanisms for knowledge acquisition like
> the IDers suggest should be done. But Science clearly is *not*
> looking for other such mechanism - it presumes Reason to be sufficient
> to its task.

Science is a specific method. If you change that method, you
no longer have Science _by definition_. You may have a meta-
method that includes science. The practice of medicine is an
example of a meta-method that includs science. The practice
of medicine is not, itself, science.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Science is a specific method. If you change that method, you
> > no longer have Science _by definition_. You may have a meta-
> > method that includes science. The practice of medicine is an
> > example of a meta-method that includs science. The practice
> > of medicine is not, itself, science.
> >
>
> 'Just curious - do you believe that the definition of Science is
> immutable and that Science cannot exist with any definition other
> than the current one (To your claim: Science and Reason are isomorphic).
> I believe that the definition of Science can change and we'll potentially
> can still have Science. I rather think that's more the point where
> we differ than anything...
>

I believe the meanings of words can change so that someday the
word 'science' may mean something different than it does today.
The discipline itself, as presently defined, will still exist, at least

as an intellectual construct, even if there are no longer any
practitioners.
Certainly today the word itself mans different things to different
people.
I suspect you understand the esotheric definion presumed by my
remarks.

A century ago, 'computer' was a job title for a human being. Now
the same word is the name of a machine.

If we expand the definition of computer science to include musical
composition we would have something quite different from what
we call computer science today. Would it then it be appropriate
to call a person with a degree in musical composition a computer
scientist?

A couple of centuries ago "Natural Philosophy" was the name
of the discipline we now call physics. My guess would be that
if someone were to use the term "Natural Philosophy" for a
current intellectual pursuit it would not be in any way an
outgrowth of the Natural Philosophy of the 18th century.

If religious philisophy is incorporated into science, or vice versa
is it not preferable to use a new word for the new construct, for
example Christian Science or Scientology? (e.g. ditto for
'science fiction')

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >><SNIP>
> >>
> <SNIP>
>
> > A century ago, 'computer' was a job title for a human being. Now
> > the same word is the name of a machine.
> >
> > If we expand the definition of computer science to include musical
> > composition we would have something quite different from what
> > we call computer science today. Would it then it be appropriate
> > to call a person with a degree in musical composition a computer
> > scientist?
>
> I take your point, but that wasn't quite what I was asking. I realize
> that the meaning of words change. But my question had more to do with
> the *discipline* called "Science" today. You say that discipline will
> likely exist in the at least as an intellectual contruct. I agree. But
> do you think that this discipline's essential starting points (whatever
> it ends up being called in the future) are immutable? In short, can
> "Science" as a construct ever evolve its starting axioms or does doing
> so inevitably make it "not Science" in your view?

Doing so inevitable makes it nonScience because those starting
points are precisely what differentiates Science from nonScience.

Were it not so, there would be not even a pretense of an objective
basis with which to differentiate Science from nonScience.


> ...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > If religious philisophy is incorporated into science, or vice versa
> > is it not preferable to use a new word for the new construct, for
> > example Christian Science or Scientology? (e.g. ditto for
> > 'science fiction')
> >
>
> A little perjorative, don't you think. "Christian Science" pretty
> much has nothing to do with Christianity or Science. Scientology has
> nothing to do with Science.

Hence my 'ditto'.

Quite a bit of successful Science fiction is written simply by taking
a traditional story and presenting it in a futuristic scenario. E.g.
the movie _Forbidden Planet_ based on Shakespeare's _The Tempest_
or one of the all-time favorite Star Trek episodes _Balance of Terror_
based on the movie _The Enemy Below_.

Hubbard simply took tradional religious concepts like demonic
posession, restated them in the parlance of Science Fiction but
then made the result into a Religion instead of a literary work.

--

FF

>> TeamCasa wrote:
>
>> I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.
>
>"Enoch Root"
> So your decision isn't influenced by the Creationist conspiracy
> surrounding IDs birth?

I'd hardly call a decision to trust in my faith in God a Creationst
conspiracy.

> You aren't concerned with the Genie In The Bottle problem associated
> with it (the "builder" is also so complex he must have also had a
> "builder")?

That's not a valid conceren unless you hold to a faith that does not promise
a future.

> You aren't concerned that it merely shifts the complexity to
> unverifiable causes when there is a plausible, testable, and evident
> alternative (it seems to allow speciation to occur but attributes the
> selection process among the variants to a "builder" rather than a
> "natural" mechanism.)?
>
Science has proven true now what will someday become a "they use to
believe..." just as the past historians and philosophers theories and
testable facts are dismissed today. The study of this subject would serve
well our current students.

> You aren't concerned that many of the "arguments" made against evolution
> by ID's proponents appear to attack problems that aren't associated with
> it (the "genesis" issue, origin of life vs. origin of species)?

Nope. We still have too many variables to solve.

> You don't grow suspicious of motive when you notice that it is in many
> ways indistinguishable from evolution *except* that it requires there be
> an intelligence at work controlling the machinery?

What motive? All ID'ers want is that the whole process is discussed and
from that discussion, an individual can make an informed decision. The
evolutionists of today are as bad as the Spanish Inquisitionists. Think my
way or suffer the consequences. Absolutely no tolerance for other points of
view.

> You aren't upset that many of the arguments attack problems with human
> thought, verifiability, and logic, that are endemic to all thought (ID
> included) and as such aren't relevant to science, but to broader
> questions of philosophy?

As to the creation of everything, there is no real hard science,
verifability or logic. All there is, is conjecture. Modern science has yet
to determine, without doubt, an answer to the simplest of questions. Why is
there life?

> You aren't surprised that an idea is being advanced that rightly belongs
> to a metaphysical discussion, not one of practice, and therefore is
> orthogonal to a critique on the validity of a theory of speciation?

The incorporeal ream of evolutionists and some of the ID'rs troubles me a
little. However, my faith is cemented in my understanding that the work of
science has nothing to do with the current consensus. Consensus is strictly
political. True science is not. In science consensus is meaningless. The
only truth and relevancy provable and reproducible facts.
"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke
with the consensus." Michael Crichton, 2003 CalTech lecture.

> These are some of the problems I have with Intelligent Design. I'd be
> interested in knowing how you overcome these.
>


I love science. I trust in God. I'm promised an answer. This not a non
sequitur.

Dave



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Teamcasa wrote:
> ...
>
> What motive?

DAGS "Wedge Document".

--

FF

> Teamcasa wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> What motive?

Ignoring all other points FF replied:
> DAGS "Wedge Document".

So what? Do you think that the DI speaks for all the people that believe in
God? Its hard to imagine that the entire body of academia trusts solely
modern science without dissent? There must be a balance. After all, what
frightens the evolutionists so much that they are un-willing to have all of
the information available discussed without healthy debate?

Dave
An old solid oak tree is just a nut that refused to give up.
Back to woodworking.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Teamcasa wrote:
> > Teamcasa wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >> What motive?
>
> Ignoring all other points FF replied:
> > DAGS "Wedge Document".
>
> So what? Do you think that the DI speaks for all the people that believe in
> God?

I think you asked "What motive?"

I think I answered accurately and succintly.

I don't know if you are pissed off to learn that there IS a prominant
organization with an apparent motive of the sort alluded to, or if
you are pissed off that the information is freely available.
Personally,
I think you should be pissed off at the way they've been
manipulating you.

> Its hard to imagine that the entire body of academia trusts solely
> modern science without dissent? There must be a balance. After all, what
> frightens the evolutionists so much that they are un-willing to have all of
> the information available discussed without healthy debate?
>

I am not aware of any 'evolutionist' who is afraid of free discussion
of
the information.

Any number of people capable of debating the issues decline to
do so for a number of reasons. Some of them simply have
better things to do. Others decline for the same reasons that
the American Cancer Society quit debating the tobacco companies.

Plainly if you are interested in a healthy debate you'll post over
on talk.origins, where the issue is on-topic and will attract the
attention of people competent and willing to debate it.

OTOH, if you are afraid of a healthy debate, you will not.

--

FF

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:04:48 GMT, Joe Barta <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>> Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and
>> repression!
>
>I have a different take... I think it's a matter of a little something
>being better than all of nothing. I'm happy to see Google in China...
>getting the foot in the door so to speak. If I'm not mistaken, there
>will be a notice on the search results page stating that certain items
>have been blocked due to censorship. Google wants access to China's
>market and I think that was a fair compromise for now. Plus, most
>certainly some of that awful content like "democracy" and "freedom"
>will make it through... and I'd say that can only be good.
>
>Joe Barta
I agree completely. The fall of the iron curtain in Europe was
largely due to the access to uncensored information to its population.
This is a huge crack in China's wall...
TWS

entfillet wrote:

> I've looked at your posting history on Usenet and you seem to be both a
> Usenet junky and a Conflict junky.
>
> You have admitted that you have little to contribute to this newsgroup
> - why don't you bugger off, then!

Sorry to disappoint, but I do not fit your demographic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 4 Feb 2006 09:04:30 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 00:59:28 -0600, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> On the surface it looks like George Soros provides more
>> >> funding than policy--quite a contrast with Pat Robertson
>> >> who dictates much of the Republican policy. However
>> >> maybe Mr Soros is just more subtle.
>
>I'll also add that from his bio it looks like George Soros made
>his money honestly.
>

Well, I suppose if you consider bankrupting third world nations by
speculating on their currency and endangering the currencies of first tier
nations like Britain via the same approach to be making money "honestly",
then I suppose you can say that George Soros came by his money honestly.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[email protected] wrote:

<SNIP>

> Science is a specific method. If you change that method, you
> no longer have Science _by definition_. You may have a meta-
> method that includes science. The practice of medicine is an
> example of a meta-method that includs science. The practice
> of medicine is not, itself, science.
>

'Just curious - do you believe that the definition of Science is
immutable and that Science cannot exist with any definition other
than the current one (To your claim: Science and Reason are isomorphic).
I believe that the definition of Science can change and we'll potentially
can still have Science. I rather think that's more the point where
we differ than anything...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"entfillet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Well, congratulations. You've demonstrated that you can use Google..."
>
>
> Yes. You should see how many posts show up when a search is done for
> posts to this newsgroup, using the search terms "Doug Miller" AND
> "Asshole".
>
> It seems I'm not the only one who has come to that conclusion.

I know nothing about chess, but find this discussion fascinating. What was
your rating, and what is the rating range?

Dave Balderstone wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>China has not thus far demonstrated any animus to the US
>
>
> Are you aware of how much of your federal debt they own?
>

How is that animus? Floating bonds to raise capital is a normal
practice among all major governments and business concerns.
It is an expression of trust on the part of the lender that they
consider the borrower to be financially sound. Historically,
US debt has been seens as a rock-solid investement for international
lenders. Why is China different?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 31 Jan 2006 09:27:27 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>todd wrote:
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
>> > time.
>> >
>> > I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
>> > killfile :-).
>>
>> If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
>> public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call
>> attention to yourself?
>>
>
>There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". That I daresay, is
>why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
>we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
>them to post about this week.
>

Is that the current put-down that Mr Soros is telling you to use this
month for any comments that don't fit into his worldview?




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Fifth, I am gratified to know that I have gotten on your nerves enough that
> you feel the need to make the debate about my personal posting behavior.
> Squealing of this sort is almost always the evidence of the lack of
> coherent ideas and it's time to go after the speaker.

I've come to a similar conclusion. I confess that I don't understand
the almost pathological need to announce additions to one's kill file.

Bizarre.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

In article <[email protected]>, Joe Barta
<[email protected]> wrote:

> If you don't want to
> read it, then figure out how to work your newsreader so that you can
> ignore threads, or even ignore certain posters if you must.

The Standard Advice:

Ignore, filter, help others to do the same.

;-)

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

"entfillet" <[email protected]> writes:

>
>Isn't it actually the case that you have made a Usenet career of
>inserting yourself into groups where you have nothing to contribute and
>only seek to call attention to yourself , without regard for the
>culture of the groups that you violate?

Actually, could it be more likely that Daneliuk is the current
nom de plume of a whitehouse staffer?

scott

Enoch Root wrote:

> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>Enoch Root wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at
>>>>>the
>>>>>Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this
>>>>>materialist/mechanical
>>>>>POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting
>>>>>points -
>>>>>this includes Science.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
>>>>comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
>>>>'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
>>>>off-topic at.
>>>>
>>>>I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.
>>>>
>>>>Can you direct me to your source?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big Bang
>>>Theory, and offer sources, cites.
>>>
>>>I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine
>>>the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say,
>>>irrelevant^Wofftopic.
>>
>>
>>You need to understand the context of the quote. Someone described ID as
>>irrational "mumbo jumbo". I responded with the above quote as an example
>>where non-provable assumptions served as the basis for *science*. It had
>>nothing whatsoever to do with "undermining evolution" or "supporting
>>ID". It had to do with trying to swat away this contention (implicit in
>>much of that thread) that science is somehow epistemicly "purer" and/or
>>that ID is an idiotic position. In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
>>is Science.
>
>
> You keep confusing science with philosophy, that's your problem. You

I am entirely clear on the distinction and have no conqsequent problem:

1) The philosophy of science requires "faith" in certain unprovable
starting points about the nature and efficacy of the methods of science.

2) The practice of science is built upon the philosophy of science.

3) By Transitive Closure, the practice of science is thus built
(ultimately, subtlely) on a kind of "faith". That fact that this
belief is non-religious does not make it any less "faith".

> know the word epistemology, but you don't understand it. (there's a
> (very) little joke there, if you look)

You're right, it's very little.

>
> don't trip while you backpeddle away from your statements.

I won't, I affirm them more strongly.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Enoch Root wrote:

> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>
>>I could refute about 90% of what you wrote simply by explaining
>>point-by-point how you've subtly misrepresented what I said and/or
>>mean knowing full well the actual intention of what I wrote. Your
>>commentary is full of straw.
>
>
> How could you ever prove that, given your metaphysical stance?

And the misdirection and intellectual prestidigitation begins.
I guess I can't avoid swatting flies tonight:

I never said I could "prove" anything, merely that I could
refute the previous post's dishonesty by disclosing it as such.
Your cavalier introduction of the notion of "proof" is not binding
upon me to defend because it is *your* idea, not mine.

If you're going to play with the Grownups, you have to learn to think
and speak as one and not just pout because you don't like the content of
the conversation.


> Do you mean:
> Your outdated notions of the state of philosophy? You were arguing
> against an old school (The Vienna School) of thought, not Science as
> methodology.

I was arguing *against* nothing. I was attempting to describe
why no system of knowledge can prove its premises. At no point did
I attack science or its methodology.

If you're going to play with the Grownups, you have to learn to think
clearly and parse sentences for what they mean not invent subtle
misrepresentations thereof more ammenable to your inadequate rhetorical
and reasoning skills.

>
> Your unreasonable expectation that Science adopt the doubts of
> philosophy, rather than use it as a guide and warning, and inspiration?

I expressed none of my own expectations about science. I tried to
articulate the claims of the IDers as collateral to a larger question I
was asked. Moreover, philosophy is not expressing "doubt" (what a cute
way to trivialize thousands of years of thoughtful discourse).
Philosophy is naming very specific limitations about what we can even
know. It takes a religious person to ignore those limitations and
proceed anyway.

If you're going to play with the Grownups, you have to accept that you
are just a religious as the most devout Theist, you're just less honest
about it and your (purely mechanical) god is less interesting. It's
considered Bad Form to try and hide this sort of thing.


> Science is a practical endeavor to understand the world. It's

I said this from the outset. Go back and look for the word "utility"
in my previous post. I'm glad you agree with me on this.

> limitations are well-known, but they don't distinguish it from, say ID.

Agreement again, surely there must be a God! The limitations in question
are common across *all* systems of knowledge ... which I said in
the first place.

If you're going to play with the Grownups, be sure you're not
actually parroting what you are putatively arguing against. It
makes you look very silly.

> It's actually the strengths of Science, its predictive value, that
> distinguish it from flights of fancy like ID.

To the extent that it is predictive that's true. However, not every part
of contemporary science is predictive. For instance, current
evolutionary theory is no such thing - at least not at any fine grained
level of detail. Todays "science" embraces far more than just those
portions of disciplines that are predictive. There is lots of induction
and deduction taking place far beyond the boundaries of being able to be
predictive. Oh, and by the way ... "predictive" is nothing more than
science demonstrating utility value. It does not make the premises of
science inherently more valid than the premises of other systems of
thought.

If you want to play with the Grownups, you can't get convenient
amnesia about the parts of your system that don't fit your own
line of argument.

>
> Your implication that ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
> limitations of the theory of evolution? Even while lacking its strengths?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness." Where in my original post
did I even _hint_ that "ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
limitations"? I realize it was a long post, but after all, I did
start out by describing at some length how all epistemologies
have *common* limitations and boundaries.

Grownups do no lie about each other - well civil ones don't anyway.
Lying about your rhetorical opponent's position is a political
tactic, is the sign of a weak argument, and a personal moral failing
on the part of the liar.


> Your use of our ignorance of the origin of life as an attack on our
> (well-established) theories of the origin of species?

The theories are not "well established". Science has at least
a 2500 year tradition (and perhaps more) of which less than 150
have held some version on the origin of the species you espouse.
Moreover, the arguments for that theory are: a) All indirect - they
cannot be verified by direct experiment and b) Are missing key
supporting elements (like transition fossils). Since this is so,
that theory has to be logically seen as being *weaker* than one
that has experimental confirmation.

This is not to say the theory is wrong, merely not as strong ... and
therefore far from being "well-established". Unless, of course, you
choose to believe it absent those things. Such a position is fine with
me, but let's call it what it really is: Faith.

Grownups who really treasure their own Faith don't try and pretend
it does not exist, they celebrate it.

>
> Your flat-out wrong assertion that when I examine where "parts" come
> from and why they "work" will drive me inexorably to the conclusion
> there is a builder?

It was not "my" assertion. That sentence comes from an attempt on my
part to catalog the current position of IDers. They are, in fact, wrong
about this one. You are an existence proof that some people rebel at the
idea of a builder no matter how elegantly designed the building is
because your Faith precludes the possibility that you are not at the top
of the knowledge food chain.

Grownups do not make transparent attempts to tar their rhetorical
opposition with sentences taken out of context so far as to
entirely twist the point beyond recognition.

> If you were a biochemist (I am) conversant in genetics (I am) and
> population variation (I am) do you think that would be sufficient
> *background* with which to make this examination? Do you think having
> such a background would be helpful to such an examination?

Tsk, tsk. This sounds suspiciously like an argument from Authority - how
very Vatican of you. I was under the impression that the science
was a discipline in which this was never done.

So now we've come full circle. Your fulminations demonstrate my very
first point in the earlier post: What you "know" depends entirely on
what you accept as being "true". You haven't refuted me even slighly -
you've served as an example of what I wrote. The only real difference
between you and the most devout Theist or one of the IDers, is that the
latter admit their Faith and their God. You have both and pretend they
don't exist.

>
>>But I won't. I have a much simpler refutation: If what I described
>>is so transparently foolish, why does it annoy you so much given
>>your self-described intimations of sophistication? Methinks
>>thou protesteth way too much ...
>
>
> You are all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And you are angry, strident, and defensive signifying self-doubt and fear ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> At Christmas time this year, our local Co-op grocery store had Mandarin
> oranges from both China and Japan, with the Chinese oranges selling for
> $1.50 less per box.
>
> I picked up a box of the Japanese oranges and was putting it in my cart
> when an elderly gentleman asked "What's the difference, that you're
> buying the more expensive box?"
>
> I replied "Japan has a functioning democracy."
>
> He raised his eyebrows, nodded, and went for the Japanese product as
> well.
>
> One box of oranges at a time...

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/googleaction?

Joe Barta wrote:
>
> Do you have any thoughts on how this thing might play out? What are
> the dangers? What are the concerns?
>
> Joe Barta

Hummm, as one who's salary is effectively paid by the chinese students
who attend the university where I work I can only comment:
Probably when an experiment, for which there is no risk assessment,
using bio-hazardous materials, gos wrong and something really nasty
escapes.....

Spin Denyalot wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>> TeamCasa wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.
>>
>>
>>
>> So your decision isn't influenced by the Creationist conspiracy
>> surrounding IDs birth?
>
>
> And science was built on the foolishness of Tyco Brache who
> was utterly wrong. Guilt By Association.

Hi Spin. This wasn't directed at you.

You are wrong. Brahe was a colorful element of the development of
science. He took a position that turned out to be wrong. But he took a
testable position. He also was no doubt influenced by external
religious/politial pressure (sounds familiar). Saying he was "wrong" is
to discount the extremely valuable contributions he made to the
development of astronomy. Comparing him to ID also is the very Guilt By
Association you seem to be accusing me of, and discounts the actual
validity and testability of his theory, wrong or right.

>> You aren't concerned with the Genie In The Bottle problem associated
>> with it (the "builder" is also so complex he must have also had a
>> "builder")?
>
> This isn't remotely a problem for anyone who has ever done an
> inductive proof or integrated over a discontinuity in math -
> at least not if they sit down and thing about it for any length
> of time. Baseless Argument.

Why is it baseless, just because there are discontinuities in some
equations? How does that follow? That's utter nonesense.
Discontinuities have distinct properties and causes, and induction over
them has actual results that can be compared to well-defined behaviors.
To liken the Genie in the Bottle to this is to trivialize the problems
inherent to such a proposition.

>> You aren't concerned that it merely shifts the complexity to
>> unverifiable causes when there is a plausible, testable, and evident
>> alternative (it seems to allow speciation to occur but attributes the
>> selection process among the variants to a "builder" rather than a
>> "natural" mechanism.)?
>
> The current theory found in the scientific community is full of
> unverifiable causes which are not testable. False Dichotomy.

Oh please, do more than assert and give me an argument. There must be
something you can give me, but really I think you are spitting a party
line. What current theory? Are we still talking about evolution, the
theory of speciation? Are you going to talk about transitional fossils
again, or do you have something beter? Be specific!

>> You aren't concerned that many of the "arguments" made against evolution
>> by ID's proponents appear to attack problems that aren't associated with
>> it (the "genesis" issue, origin of life vs. origin of species)?
>
> One does not measure the merits of a system on the basis of
> that systems' bad practicioners. Ad Hominem.

You don't know what an ad hominem is, either. A bad argument is a bad
argument, not an attacked personage.

Well, I think you raised that yourself... oh wait. You were reciting
an ID view... you were reciting a "bad ID practitioners" view?

ID pretends to be practical if it makes claim to merit... but ID has
nothing testable or verifiable to it that isn't a simulacrum of Evo
ending with a whispering "as though there were a builder". This is the
failure of ID: an attempt to descend into practice by what is rightly a
metaphysical discussion.

>> You don't grow suspicious of motive when you notice that it is in many
>> ways indistinguishable from evolution *except* that it requires there be
>> an intelligence at work controlling the machinery?
>
> This is not inherently a problem. It may be evidence both parties
> are onto something. Overstated.

There is when you presume to descend from the realm of metaphysical
discussion into science. It's a problem inherent to ID. What ID has to
offer that Evolution doesn't is the essence of ID. And that lies in
another area of discussion than science.

>> You aren't upset that many of the arguments attack problems with human
>> thought, verifiability, and logic, that are endemic to all thought (ID
>> included) and as such aren't relevant to science, but to broader
>> questions of philosophy?
>
> You cannot seperate the practice of science from its epistemic roots.
> Bad Dualism.

No, *you* can't. Because you refuse to recognize the separateness of
physik and metaphysik, of knowledge and epistemology. You wish to
confound all meaning for the purposes of your argument (well, if you had
one. You offer (spurious) strengths of one, and criticisms of t'other,
you exploit the fundamentally metaphysical questions of one against the
practical considerations of t'other, but you only claim to be reciting
the party line.)

>> You aren't surprised that an idea is being advanced that rightly belongs
>> to a metaphysical discussion, not one of practice, and therefore is
>> orthogonal to a critique on the validity of a theory of speciation?
>
> Utter baloney. Do this though experiment: Say that the IDers
> were able to establish just their philosophical claims. Do you
> seriously believe this would have no consequence to the practice of
> science and its currently-held theories? More Bad Dualism.

Only if it offers something to practice beyond awed whispers.

>> These are some of the problems I have with Intelligent Design. I'd be
>> interested in knowing how you overcome these.
>
> Since every single one of your "problems" are artifical, overstated,
> or flatly bogus, you can "overcome" them by applying some small
> modicum of honesty to your internal discourse. There are problems
> with ID as currently proposed, but you haven't nailed a single one
> of them.

This question was directed at someone I believe can give me an honest
and heartfelt explanation of his views. Not you.

er
--
email not valid

Mon, Jan 30, 2006, 8:58pm (EST-3) [email protected]
(Larry=A0Blanchard) giggles and tells us:
I've got too much time on my hands :-).<snip>

You don't know how to spend it either.

As long as you've got so much time to waste, go count all the plans
posts I've made, make a site with all the links, each with a title, then
e-mail the site link to everyone here. Except me. Then you can
killfile me. I would have said you could "plonk" me, but I was afraid
you might have mis-understood what I meant.

Gods above, if that's all you have to occupy your time, I'm so very
glad I don't have your life. That'd be at least as bad as being
banished to the Pluperfect Purple Hell.



JOAT
Shhh... that's the sound of nobody caring what you think.

Renata wrote:

> Amendment I of the Bill of Rights
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


You'll notice that this is a directive to *government* to keep its beak
out of private matters - religion in this case. There is no
complementary instruction for it to *prevent* citizens from expressing
their religious views within institutions they *pay* for (say, for
example, a school).

> In fact, public schools are making a choice based on this l'il ole
> amendment - to not support a particular religion's philosophies. It
> doesn't make secularism into a religion.

Secularism *most certainly* is a belief system no different in kind
than any other religion. Every time a school chooses a secular
agenda, it chooses an epistemology, a values system, and a particular
point-of-view about the world in which we live. For example,
so-called "multi-culturalism" is a secular values agenda in that it
conciously make no distinctions between the moral "qualities" of
different cultures.

I'm not arguing against secularism here. I'm arguing that you
cannot make choices in a public school setting without embracing
*some* values system and right now the schools have chosen
secular values. This is as offensive to religious people as
choosing Christian values and epistemology would be to an atheist.
There is thus *no* way to run a publicly funded education program
without violating the sensibilities of some significant portion
of the population.

>
> Not all religions on this earth espouse this idea of ID and teaching
> ID would thus "favor" that particular religion's views.

For the moment, (unless/until ID is established as legitimate Science)
that's right. But espousing a purely matter/mechanical/naturalist
view of knowledge is just as much a statement of belief. In both
cases, these are inbound *assumptions* about how the world operates
based on individual *belief*. You cannot argue against ID being
permitted in the schools on the one hand and on the other defend the
presence of materialist/naturalism on the other - its hypocritical.
Either both belong in the school system (noting that, for the moment,
ID ought not to be taught as "Science") or *neither* belongs in the
school.

The root cause here is not ID or Scientific naturalism. The root
cause problem is the fact that schools have been collectivized by
means of government and can thus *never* satisfy the entire or even
a significant percentage of the population's worldview.

>
> Until ID can fit under our established precepts of "science", it ain't
> science. Science doesn't claim to know all, or always be right, but
> it does have rules (testability, etc.) and ID fails in every one of
> those rules. Therefore, it ain't science.
>
> Really, you ought to be worrying about the rest of the amendment these
> days...

I do. I worry about the 1st Amendment being violated by the politically-
correct secularists who parade so-called moral "neutrality" and who hide
behind code words like "sexual harrassment", "racism", and "hate speech"
to restrict free expression. I worry about the 2nd Ammendment because it
is under continuous assault by the drooling idiot Left. I worry about
the 4th Amendment because it is under assault by every part of the
political and cultural spectrum - the Right wants to peek in our
windows, and the Left wants to confiscate private wealth. I worry about
the neverending abuse of the Commerce Clause whereby government gives
itself permission to intrude upon anything it feels like in some
contrived claim to commerce.


Every single example I have cited here is really an example of one
thing: The collectivization of our lives through government and the
consequent erradication of the distinction between private and public
matters.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "entfillet" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Well, congratulations. You've demonstrated that you can use Google..."
>>
>
> Interesting that youu snipped the part of my post that shows you're
> mistaken...
>
>>Yes. You should see how many posts show up when a search is done for
>>posts to this newsgroup, using the search terms "Doug Miller" AND
>>"Asshole".
>>
>>It seems I'm not the only one who has come to that conclusion.
>>
>
> Isn't that special. You're losing the argument, so you resort to personal
> abuse. How mature of you.

Uh, Doug, look at the thread title. The whole thing *started* at
a (feeble) attempt at a personal swipe. You need to see this for
what it is. The self-appointed Elite here don't like being challenged
on anything. When they do, they go in to Scientologist Mode: They
become vicious attack dogs. Relax, it's of no real consequence.
You've won the argument when the counter becomes personal. Enjoy it...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article <[email protected]>, "entfillet" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Well, congratulations. You've demonstrated that you can use Google..."
>
Interesting that youu snipped the part of my post that shows you're
mistaken...
>
>Yes. You should see how many posts show up when a search is done for
>posts to this newsgroup, using the search terms "Doug Miller" AND
>"Asshole".
>
>It seems I'm not the only one who has come to that conclusion.
>
Isn't that special. You're losing the argument, so you resort to personal
abuse. How mature of you.

Suck it up, admit you were wrong, apologize, and move on.

Of course, if you had actually *read* those posts that Google found, you'd
come to a different conclusion -- demonstrating once again that, while you're
able to run a search engine, you have difficulty understanding what you find.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Joe Barta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> There is something profound and transcendent
>> about being human that cannot be explained away because we
>> understand the "gears and pulleys" that make us what we
>> are physically.
>
> I've never agreed with this notion that somehow we humans are somehow
> "special" compared to any other life on the planet, or even to
> ANYTHING else anywhere.

So, you're a vegan?

> Let's take it backwards... were Neandertals profound and trancendent?
> Whales? Dogs? Spiders? Earthworms? Amoebae? Bacteria? Organic
> molecules? Water molecules?
>
> Certainly, some characteristics that define us as "human", such as
> creativity, love, hate, etc are either not present in "lower" animals
> or are present to a much less complex degree. I would argue that those
> characteristics that you use to place humans in a "special" category
> are nothing more than manifestations of our complexity.
>
> Fast forward 100 million years and it's very likley that some future
> form of life may surpass human complexity and then humans will find
> themselves a "lower" animal.

I think you're being incredibly optimistic to think that we'll be around in
100 million years.

todd

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

[schnibble]

*boggle*

I've never shat a tapeworm into the bowl before... but I'm sure I'd feel
the same looking at such an amazing adaptable parasite.

er
--
email not valid

Joe Barta wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>
>>didn't you buttercup
>
>
> In a debate, I usually know when the other guy has run out of worthy
> argument and it's time to move on...

Say, didn't you just the other day say that silence implies consent?

:)

er
--
email not valid

In article <[email protected]>, "entfillet" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"BTW, I noticed you didn't reply to my question: what was your last
>USCF
>rating?"
>
>I'll be in your general area on business in mid March. How about we
>play best of three for a hundred bucks? I can stay over for a Saturday
>to do it but need to be back home by Sunday afternoon. It's enough
>money to make it fun without calling the attention of our wives.

You still haven't answered that question: what was your last rating?
>
>I'd suggest forty moves in two hours.

Sounds good to me.
>
>We'll shake for the white.
>
>I'll be using algebraic notation. We can talk about the other
>possibilities, then.
>
It doesn't matter to me what notation you use; why even mention it? You figure
out yet that there's no such square as "KP3" in descriptvie notation?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've got too much time on my hands :-).
>
> I just did a Google search on postings to this group by Tim in the last
> 12 months. There were 116. 5 or 6 were on woodworking topics based on
> the subject line.
>
> Just to be fair, since I've been known to get drawn into these off topic
> discussions, I checked my own history. At least the first 128 Google
> showed me (it omitted 202 "similar" postings). Of the 128, better than
> 60 were on woodworking or responding to things like Toms stories, beer
> jokes, computer questions, etc..
>
> So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
> time.
>
> I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
> killfile :-).

If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call
attention to yourself?

todd

"Dave Balderstone" <dave***@balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:010220061428379496%dave***@balderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, Joe Barta
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Gee, now there's a workable idea. I say GWB just pulls his head out of
>> his ass and cuts off all trade with China until they behave the way
>> we'd like. Such a simple solution. I wish I had your grasp of the
>> situation and your talent for problem solving.
>
> It worked with South Africa. But it was our Prime Minister at the time,
> not your President, leading the boycott.

Well, if it worked for South Africa, it's bound to work for China. I mean,
South Africa has an economy nearly 7% the size of China's, so it's the
perfect model. I tell you what, let's do the same for the middle east and
just boycott Iran and Saudi Arabia while we're at it.

todd

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

[snip]

Positivism is *dead*, Jim!

For quite some time. Read up on Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, Rudolph
Carnap, and (your friend, the atheist positivist) Bertrand Russell if
you want to know where that argument went.

It's funny you'd use such a modern argument, the fundamental limits and
uncertainty of our perceptive powers, to attack an old idea, and advance
a creationist ideology (I know you already denied it's creationism... I
disagree, having seen that it is well spun creationism.)

The troubles with ID are that they (you) first claim that idea (of
limits to knowledge) as their (your) own to discredit science, then
propose to do away with it entirely by attributing anything unknown to
the Invisible Diddler. Something you can't verify. Yes, so until we
sharpen our vision to the degree that that (one at a time, slowly)
question can then be answered fully and completely with a precise and
unbroken timeline of events, the IDers will step in to say "here, this
gray area here, is where the Invisible Diddler shows his miraculous
handiwork." Science has for many years already been agonizing over the
problems of proof, and exploiting that to advance what amounts to a
whimsical thought experiment is... low.

The trouble with ID is that it proposes to attack one area of science
using lack of a theory in quite another one.

There has never been a question regarding evolution that could not be
answered with a reasonable scenario, without having to sketch the
outlines of an Invisible Diddler.

"The assumption that the mechnical/material view is sufficient" is a red
herring. We have a much more sophisticated view (today) of emergent
systems and complexity that arise from the physical world than the
worldview being attacked by the IDers. It's still not necessary to rely
upon an Invisible Diddler*.

Another red herring is that evolution has ever claimed to describe the
genesis of life. It doesn't. We haven't learned enough about *the
past* yet to be able to *extend* evolution to such an alien landscape.
But equating our ignorance of eras long past to "holes in evolution"
is... a red herring.

If there is a God/Alien/SpaghettiMonster (and notice I've never said
there's not) and I could face him/her/it to ask "was that you they were
talking about?" [[s]he|it]'d say no. Then he'd touch me with his noodly
appendage, and I'd be enlightened.

That book you posted... haven't read it but I have read Behe, and every
thing he said was either a lie or omitted contradictory evidence.
There's plenty of material online about his smears and about his
failures to admit or remove his omissions from his rhetoric--I'll look
for commentary on that book.

*I just made it up and am infatuated with the phrase, so I'm going to
enjoy it for awhile...

er
--
email not valid

Spin Denyalot wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>
>>> I never said I could "prove" anything, merely that I could
>>> refute the previous post's dishonesty by disclosing it as such.
>>> Your cavalier introduction of the notion of "proof" is not binding
>>> upon me to defend because it is *your* idea, not mine.
>>
>>
>>
>> You wriggle and squirm, but you can't escape your own words:
>
>
> Ah Watson lives ...
>
>>
>> refute:
>> To disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or
>> countervailing proof; to prove to be false or erroneous; to
>> confute; as, to refute arguments; to refute testimony; to
>> refute opinions or theories; to refute a disputant.
>>
>> A "disproof" is a proof of a negative. You're logic is slippery and
>> disingenuous. It's also untrue.
>
>
> Your use of language is sloppy. While "prove" is one possible
> way to undersand "refute", it is not the only one. "Proof"
> has a very particular meaning in the philosophical context of this
> discussion which is why I avoided the word and used "refute" instead.

My use of language is perfectly standard. Yours only comes evident in
your denials.

>> I said that as a joke about your attempting to "refute" something when
>> after all that blather you regurgitated about the futility of proofs.

[left a snip here unindicated, didn't you buttercup]

>
> There was nothing "joking" about it. You are snide and condescending
> which is why I replied in kind. If you want a serious discussion,
> you have to maintain your side of it. And, here's an example of
> your contemptible manner, however subtle: I *NEVER* said proofs
> were "futile" or even hinted at it. I was *very* specific that
> proofs *about starting propositions* are impossible. I then went on
> to explain just where proofs *are* possible (in the context of validating
> a theorem against an axiom). You know all this, of course, but want
> to slide in some idiotic transformation of what I said - it's the only
> way you can defend your increasingly-enfeebled position.

You have the order wrong... I didn't start the ad hominems. You did.

And if the proofs of theorems against axioms are against axioms whose
proofs are impossible, can one not deduce that all proofs are on shaky
ground? That is the state of the art, Buttercup. Nothing idiotic about
it.

> <SNIP>
>
>>> I was arguing *against* nothing. I was attempting to describe
>>> why no system of knowledge can prove its premises. At no point did
>>> I attack science or its methodology.
>>
>>
>>
>> You did this (describe undecidability in a pomo populist
>> science/philosophy ignorant way) to explain your source of criticisms.
>> You assert ID's "views": "The assumption that the mechnical/material
>> view is sufficient is wrong." Who's argument is that? That went out
>
>
> The IDers. Are you capable of reading and understanding standard
> English? I was reciting a list of ID claims as I understood them,
> not asserting whether I agreed with those claims or not.

So you were just reciting? No goals in doing so? Not answering
questions or defending an argument--just noise?

>> years ago, and in fact complexity theory is still in its infancy. So if
>> that isn't science (seems "utilitarian" enough to me, so I assume you're
>> asserting the inadequacy thereof) then is it philosophy? 'Cause it's
>> old and crusty in that field too, my little poseur. Are you going to
>> back away from that statement as well?
>
>
> Another attempt to step out of your self-inflicted middenheap.
> Complexity theory - whatever its current state - does not undermine
> the mechanical/material premises baked into all contemporary science.
> It speaks to the question of just *how* the parts get organized as they
> do. It does not, however, change the notion that science is sufficiently
> served by examining the parts and not the metaphysical whole. I keep
> repeating the same things here in hopes it will penetrate your
> already made-up mind.

You don't seem to have anything to penetrate with, Buttercup.

>> Look, if you *are* going to state an argument and back it up, you really
>> *must* make an effort to keep things clear, alright? If you aren't
>
>
> Making things "clear" is impossible when the other party neither
> honors the common use of language nor is capable of grasping short
> sentences with simple words.

That's become very clear to me in your denials and your strange and
unconventional use of "refute", among other oddities.

>> making an argument against outdated notions of the state of philosophy,
>> don't include it in your response! A please remember to maintain a
>> distinction between philosophy and science as it's very important.
>
>
> So, if I understand you (and I'm trying, *unlike* you), your claim
> is that the philosophy of science in current use no longer limits
> itself to understanding the universe in purely mechanical terms.
> That is, there is a legitimate teleological (why and from where)
> dimension to science as currently practiced. Show me.

No? You don't need to step outside of my sentence, just keep your
disciplines in order.

>>>> Your unreasonable expectation that Science adopt the doubts of
>>>> philosophy, rather than use it as a guide and warning, and inspiration?
>>>
>>>
>>> I expressed none of my own expectations about science. I tried to
>>> articulate the claims of the IDers as collateral to a larger question I
>>> was asked. Moreover, philosophy is not expressing "doubt" (what a cute
>>> way to trivialize thousands of years of thoughtful discourse).
>>> Philosophy is naming very specific limitations about what we can even
>>> know. It takes a religious person to ignore those limitations and
>>> proceed anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, so you aren't saying anything real, or relevant? Is that why you
>> change the subject and natter on some more about my "cute
>> trivializations"? Again, if it's not a part of your argument, don't
>> include it! Sheesh.
>
>
> <Explanation For The Churlish & Feeble>
>
> 1. I got asked a question
> 2. I attempted to answer the question in two parts:
>
> a) A discussion on the limitations of what can be "proven"
> b) A catalog of what I understand ID's claims are

That's a ragged argument, if that's what you're calling it, and misses
much of the detail. A question does impose some restrictions on the
answer, ya know.

> 3. You trivialized 2a) by reducing it to "doubt"
> (Probably because you didn't understand it)

I wasn't trivializing anything. There's nothing to trivialize,
Buttercup. You're just reciting but not making any claims based on your
recitation.

> 4. You repeatedly tried to hang 2b) on me as if it were *my*
> stated position.
> (Because you're lonely and need someone to argue with.)
>
> </Explanation For The Churlish & Feeble>

No I'm just looking for an argument that you don't have.

>>>> Science is a practical endeavor to understand the world. It's
>>>
>>>
>>> I said this from the outset. Go back and look for the word "utility"
>>> in my previous post. I'm glad you agree with me on this.
>>
>>
>>
>> But it appeared to be completely irrelevant to your--gosh, you don't
>> really have an argument so far, do you?
>
>
> Certainly not one simple enough for you to grasp.

Or one relevant to the original question.

>>>> limitations are well-known, but they don't distinguish it from, say ID.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreement again, surely there must be a God! The limitations in
>>> question
>>> are common across *all* systems of knowledge ... which I said in
>>> the first place.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ahem. This is relevant to your explanation of critique of the Big Bang
>> Theory as it pertains to your disregard for evolution viz. ID, how?
>
>
> Where in the post in question did I even *mention* the Big Bang or
> demonstrate a "disregard" for evolution. Just for the record,
> I accept that evolution operates at some scales. I am less convinced
> that it is sufficient to produce the currently-observed biocomplexity.
> I am open to it being demonstrated one way or the other.

So you aren't concerned at all with fredfighter's query. Or my
criticisms of ID as theory. Ok. Your just making noise.

>>>> It's actually the strengths of Science, its predictive value, that
>>>> distinguish it from flights of fancy like ID.
>>>
>>>
>>> To the extent that it is predictive that's true.
>>
>>
>>
>> So we have discovered something! ID has NO value or relevance.
>
>
> Where on earth were you educated? Clearly formal logic was not
> taught there. The fact that science is sometimes predictive
> speaks in no way to whether ID has relevance. Just because
> *you* think ID is a "flight of fancy" does not make it so.

Since you only deny any attempt to circumscribe an argument, I can only
surmise your "utilitarian" description of Evolution or Science doesn't
extend to ID. But you're just making noise.

>>> However, not every part
>>> of contemporary science is predictive. For instance, current
>>> evolutionary theory is no such thing - at least not at any fine grained
>>> level of detail. Todays "science" embraces far more than just those
>>> portions of disciplines that are predictive. There is lots of induction
>>> and deduction taking place far beyond the boundaries of being able to be
>>> predictive. Oh, and by the way ... "predictive" is nothing more than
>>> science demonstrating utility value. It does not make the premises of
>>> science inherently more valid than the premises of other systems of
>>> thought.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here my little poseur friend, I can say that you are clearly out of your
>> depth and foundering in your own ideology.
>>
>> Billions of dollars are invested each year in the predictive value of
>> the mechanics of evolution and natural selection. Trillions of dollars
>> a year are made using the predictive value of the mechanics behind
>> evolution and natural selection. Trillions.
>
>
> That's right - the mathematics of it all have relevance and demonstrable
> utility. And I was clearly not specific/simple enough in language
> to make sure you understood what I meant. So I will try one last time.
> Instead of "current evolutionary theory is no such thing", I should
> have been more precise and said:
>
> Biological evolutionary theory as understood today is not
> predictive. One cannot look at a given species, and using this
> theory, reliably predict anything about how that species will
> evolve. Moreover, the biological theory of evolution is inferred
> from observation but cannot be repeated or demonstrated
> *in the large* (macro evolution).

That's an absurd limitation on "predictive". It's also not true: you
forget animal husbandry (i.e., "unnatural" selection.) Demonstrable
Macroevolutin' is a canard. A phantom invented by... Behe? Can you
describe it?

> The underlying mathematical foundations, however, have value
> in their own right and have found utility value in other
> disciplines.

Actually, they were borrowed from them. Crossover among disciplines is
slow and fraught with academic/industrial politics, discrimination. But
the incentive is there...

>> I'm the one that used practice to demonstrate Science's value, not you.
>
>
> I don't know for whom you are putting on the demonstration. I
> stipulated that science has utility value in my initial post. Oh,
> I forgot, Big Words confuse you. Let me translate: You didn't
> need to demonstrate that science has utility to me - I already knew
> that and said so long before you polluted this thread.

Hey, I'm at least making an argument, Buttercup.

>> You try to validate ID putting it above Science, by saying that because
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I defy you to cite any example in this thread where I have done this. I
> have attempted to *define* ID, and have never "put it above" science.
> Then again, I do not have the slavish religious devotion to any
> epistemology you have for science.

Above as in the field of philosophical and metaphysical endeavors,
Buttercup, where things have a different way of unfolding.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear, but you want to give a metaphysical
exploration the wrappings of Science. But with the strictures of
Metaphysics. All muddled up.

>> positivism has been debunked that anything goes. Well that works in
>> philosophy, Buttercup, but science isn't philosophy. Science is
>> influenced by philosophy, but ID isn't philosophy, and it aint science.
>> It's a mental exercise.
>
>
> Your hubris is exceeded only by your profound ignorance. No system
> of knowledge can even exist without a philosophical starting point,
> implicit- or explicit. Science isn't philosophy - it is the *application*
> of a philosophical theory of knowledge. ID most assuredly is a
> philosophy and may- or may not be shown to also be science. The
> jury is still out on that one.

My hubris is a mote in your own chaotic mind, Buttercup. You seem to be
making my point: Science and Philosophy are different endeavors.

>> Also predictive is *considerably* more than a demonstration of utility
>> value.
>
>
> Really. Do grace us with more of your sophisticated expositions
> on the matter. Beyond utility, just what does prediction
> "demonstrate" for science?
>
> You measure your ideas against the world my little poseur, and
>
>> if they match, you have a healthy world view.
>
>
> I have never taken the amount of controlled substances it would take
> to match your world view, nor do I care to.

Gaping roar (and snips), that's all?

>>>> Your implication that ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
>>>> limitations of the theory of evolution? Even while lacking its
>>>> strengths?
>>>
>>>
>>> "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Where in my original post
>>> did I even _hint_ that "ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
>>> limitations"? I realize it was a long post, but after all, I did
>>> start out by describing at some length how all epistemologies
>>> have *common* limitations and boundaries.
>>
>>
>>
>> Because I inferred it from your inclusion of these limitations for
>> evolution, as a part of your (still upcoming... hopefully soon now)
>> expose of how the BBT is crap and why that shows ID > Evo as a theory?
>
>
> So, you went from a non-existent claim on my part, to an invented
> premise on yours, to a consequent inferrence to conclude that I
> insinuated something I never did. I hope you are a better scientist
> than writer/thinker or someone needs to pull your grant money.

more snips, buttercup? What you did seems to be the big mystery because
it has already been reduced by you to nothing.

>> Because you are using these arguments against evolution? Because it
>
>
> Not once have I done so. Show me.

Well it probably doesn't exist. Or anything resembling a treatment of
the question.

>> doesn't leave you with an argument for ID if you disown it? Because
>
>
> ID and evolution are potentially entirely compatible. You would however,
> have to give up some of your current faith that you are the epitome
> of knowlege.

No, but I would have to swallow a BIG pill were I to take it on. I can
regard the religious questions with interest and zeal in the philosophical

>> your apparent task was to show us why ID was valid, where evolution is a
>> big lie? Are you not arguing for ID? Am I to take it from this that
>
>
> No. In this particular case I was trying to define it.

So, just a big recitation? No point?

>> you are just making lots of noise and my "sound and fury" theory was
>> right?
>
>
> I was answering a question, that's all. But I got the added benefit
> of watching you soil yourself repeatedly. It's been entertaining.

A question that exists only in your head.

>>>> Your use of our ignorance of the origin of life as an attack on our
>>>> (well-established) theories of the origin of species?
>>>
>>>
>>> The theories are not "well established". Science has at least
>>> a 2500 year tradition (and perhaps more) of which less than 150
>>> have held some version on the origin of the species you espouse.
>>> Moreover, the arguments for that theory are: a) All indirect - they
>>> cannot be verified by direct experiment and b) Are missing key
>>> supporting elements (like transition fossils). Since this is so,
>>> that theory has to be logically seen as being *weaker* than one
>>> that has experimental confirmation.
>>
>>
>>
>> How much development has occurred in the last 150 years. Yup.
>>
>> Somewhere is a proof that you CANNOT GO BACKWARDS IN TIME, involving
>> dT/dT as an impossibility. Sometimes the best you can do is make
>> inference. That isn't a weakness in Science, it's a limitation of our
>> own abilities that spans all our observation. Nobody has ever bounced a
>> perfectly elastic star off another. Does that mean stars don't follow
>> normal newtonian physics? No, we make inferences between them and
>> earthly objects.
>
>
> It's not a "weakness" in Science, at least not inherently. But
> is speaks to how much certainty we can ascribe to a theory.
> A theory that can be directly experimentally verified/refuted is
> far strong than one built entirely on inferrence. All scientific
> theories live on a continuum between these two endpoints with
> a corresponding degree of certainty.

You are confusing Science and Metaphysics again. Stop it.

>> Missing fossils is NOT a refutation either. That's very simple to
>
>
> I never said it was. But it raises fair questions about the correctness
> of the theory.

I know, you never said anything beyond a recitation.

>> explain if you just look at the amount of change to the geography over
>> the years. And guess what, Buttercup: there have been many, many
>> instances where there *were* no transitional fossils, BUT THEN THEY
>> FOUND SOME. Isn't that amazing! In one instant they were an
>> intervention by an Invisible Diddler, and the next, just another entry
>> in the fossil record.
>
>
> But the overwhelming body of animal fossil variety is Cambrian -
> a relatively short 100 Million years or so. Certainly not enough
> for macro evolution to take place.

There's geological/climatic explanations for that. They're worthy of study.

How would you propose to embark on a study of ID explanations for that?

> Are you saying that today's theory of evolution is so clearly certain
> it bears no further scrutiny. If so, you are a fool. The science in
> this area is far from established, and questioning it is not
> a retreat to mysticism, an affirmation of ID, or any such thing. It
> is a fair question to a discipline that keeps claiming how unbiased
> it is. Scientists are not high priests and can fairly be questioned
> when the evidence for their position is weak, inferrential, and cannot
> be examined by experiment.

No. Sorry to disappoint you. Lots of work in evolution. Can't deny
it. And don't. But it doesn't follow that "science in this area is far
from established". Again, sorry to disappoint you. The work is there,
but it's in the margins, and there's no real conflict between the world
and the theory. Can you suggest other methods than inference into
places and times that are unreachable by modern instruments, other than
through the artifacts they leave behind? Can you make an argument for
your "weak evidence" claim when the evidence, while inferential, is
global, integrated, and all verifies the theory? Can you make a
practical argument that a theory cannot be examined by experiment if the
experiments test by inference the artifacts, and are constructed in such
a way as to affirm or refute properties of evolution?

>> These are really weak arguments, poseur, that exploit exactly that
>> uncertainty of the Philosophy of science (and the honest appraisal of
>> that) against the endeavor. Philosophy of science acknowledges that,
>> and science tries to overcome it by the means available.

Here again I am trying to clarify the problem with your... recitation.

Draw a line between philosophy and science, and decide where ID lies.

>>> This is not to say the theory is wrong, merely not as strong ... and
>>> therefore far from being "well-established". Unless, of course, you
>>> choose to believe it absent those things. Such a position is fine with
>>> me, but let's call it what it really is: Faith.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, another find! It's not wrong because of that. I'm glad we agree
>> the theory is not wrong. At least, I think we do. You'll probably deny
>> that. When did we start talking about faith and belief? I was talking
>> about validity of theories. Evolution has validity and is
>> well-established as a theory. There is huge amounts of data to support
>
>
> The flat earth was once well-established. That didn't make it so. *You*
> are the one introducing Faith because you come unglued when I merely
> record the position *of another party* that questions your orthodoxy.

Yes, but competing theories that actually had a basis in the physical
world upset old theories of the earth.

Your non-defense of ID, and your non-criticism of evolution seem to be
an attempt to defend ID against evolution, but as you are merely
reciting but don't have an actual position I understand that you are
merely making noise.

>> it: in the fossil record, in breeding of livestock, in biology, in
>> population studies....
>
>
> No one, including the IDers, questions that evolution works in some
> contexts. What is being questioned is macro-evolution
> (going from primordial ooze to fish to .... to Ted Kennedy).

Macro-evolution. please define macro-evolution clearly and in terms a
mere scientist can understand. I don't think that
ooze->fish->yourobsession really cuts it.

And while we're at it Buttercup, I know it's offtopic, but how does that
guy end up in EVERY one of your discussions?

>> ID on the other hand is spaghetti monsterism.
>> Whimsy. Wishful thinking. A philosophical puzzle. There's no way to
>
>
> Ah, the High Priest has spoken. Off with the infidels' heads.

If you kept ID in the realm of metaphysical discussion I'd be fine with
that. But there are older and far more incisive questions that treat
the question of god. ID doesn't add anything to that. ID has been from
the very beginning a political game, and its proponents have tried to
use it to foist a religious agenda upon scientific endeavors as they are
depicted in schools.

>> begin to establish it even as a theory. The best you can hope for is
>> that thing you seem so disdainful of: faith. There's nothing wrong
>> with it, but it has no place in the establishment of a theory of
>> speciation.
>
>
> You have exhibited more Faith in the last 10 paragraphs than most
> religious people do in a year. You trust a theory (macro evolution
> leading to speciation) that cannot be experimentally verified, is built
> entirely on inferrence, has no fossil examples, would have to have made
> a huge step-function jump in just 100 million years, and has no
> intelligent cause to which you are willing to stipulate . You're entitled
> to hold this theory, but don't kid yourself, you're more "religious"
> than Pat Robertson.

blah blah, assertions assertions, no content. Macroevolution is a
phantom, unless you can define it in a testable way. Might be a good
starting point for a budding ID Scientist. Finding proof of intelligent
intervention in what are isolated problematic elements of our
understanding of the course of evolution are flights of fancy if there's
a plausible simple explanation at hand. They are certainly not proofs
that evolution cannot explain their presence. You are asking me to make
a far greater leap of faith. I'm ready (I've done it!) to concede the
gaps, but I'm also going to prefer a simple explanation that can be
tested or that has a possibility of explication, to one of spaghetti
monsterism.

>> [more pretending to be a grownup (with an argument), snipped]
>>
>>
>>>> Your flat-out wrong assertion that when I examine where "parts" come
>>>> from and why they "work" will drive me inexorably to the conclusion
>>>> there is a builder?
>>>
>>>
>>> It was not "my" assertion. That sentence comes from an attempt on my
>>> part to catalog the current position of IDers. They are, in fact, wrong
>>> about this one. You are an existence proof that some people rebel at the
>>> idea of a builder no matter how elegantly designed the building is
>>> because your Faith precludes the possibility that you are not at the top
>>> of the knowledge food chain.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are the one right here making the argument. Take responsibility for
>> your own actions, young man. It was your task to demonstrate an
>> argument for why The Big Bang was nothing more than a lot of hot air as
>> far as theories go, and then explain why that would demonstrate that ID
>> was better'n evolution. Oh wait... we already established that you
>> don't have one. You've backed away from everything thus far.
>
>
> Huh? Where did I do this? I never ONCE mentioned the Big Bang in
> the post that initially got your pantyhose all bunched up. You
> are either elderly, confused, drug bestotted, or just addicted to
> argument so someone/anyone will talk to you.

Well, I did assume you responded to the question with the intent to
answer it. And I did assume that your arrangement of recitations was an
attempt to answer the question. That I have to wait for the denials in
your responses certainly must show that. I've had some coffee this am.
Your speculation of my drug use I'll take to mean that you don't really
have any other intention than to make a lot of noise and be chaotic.

>> I make no professions of faith. Quite the opposite. Actually, in my
>
>
> You make repeated professions of faith in this email alone. You
> believe things without evidence. You discard contrary positions
> without evidence. You denigrate anyone who does not share your
> views. You are deeply religious. Your theology is the scientific
> method and your deity is your own intellect. All well and good,
> but quit claiming you're not religious - you are.

This isn't email, Buttercup. I've not done that, only assessed the
validity of various explanations of the world *as* *theories*. I've not
said *I* *believe* anything, but evolution has much more of my attention
as a valid theory than... well you're just reciting and denial, and
conflating Physik with Metaphysik.

If I discard a contrary position it is because there is no evidence to
support it, or it's not testable as a theory. If you want to have a
metaphysical discussion leave Evolution and Science vs. ID alone because
that's muddying it up with practice.

>> own mind I do regarding how to treat people, community responsibilities,
>> and life choices like that. Those are irrelevant here, though.
>>
>> There is no assertion in anything I said that I am at the top of the
>> "knowledge food chain". You're all alone, teetering up there, Buttercup.
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> So now we've come full circle. Your fulminations demonstrate my very
>>> first point in the earlier post: What you "know" depends entirely on
>>> what you accept as being "true". You haven't refuted me even slighly -
>>> you've served as an example of what I wrote. The only real difference
>>> between you and the most devout Theist or one of the IDers, is that the
>>> latter admit their Faith and their God. You have both and pretend they
>>> don't exist.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't get an answer to my question, then. I don't get a clarification
>> of an argument? I just get spurious accusations of fallacious
>> arguments? I was expecting something demonstrable from you, some way to
>
>
> You cannot explain calculus to a cat. There no explanation clearer
> possible than I have already given. You just don't want to accept
> it because you'd have to acknowlege your initial characterization
> of my position was WRONG. And High Priests are never wrong.

No it's because you can't keep your knowledge and epistemology straight,
because you aren't answering a question posed, and because you only
claim to be reciting dogma when it is evident you had a ID vs. Evo
agenda (based on the content of your recitation. A supposition I'm
comfortable with.)

>> legitimize ID as a theory that would somehow put it in contention with
>> evolution as a theory. And I was willing and ready to put up my
>
>
> How did you reach the conclusion that ID and evolution are mutually
> exclusive? Oh, I forgot, it wasn't in any of your holy books.

Oh maybe it was the arrangement of your recitation, or the incantation
of "macroevolution".

> <SNIP>
>
>>> And you are angry, strident, and defensive signifying self-doubt and
>>> fear ...
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it a habit of yours, to provoke people with your snide little
>> arrogant shit comments, and then turn it against their argument? You
>> are a pathetic little monster of a boy, Buttercup. And dishonest. You
>> have succeeded in annoying me.
>
> Then my work is done

Ah, the point at last. Thank you for being honest about *that*.

er
--
email not valid