I apologize in advance for the didactic tone of what follows.
Yes, God IS speaking through me.
The closer one gets to the dictionary-making enterprise, the less one is
inclined to use a dictionary to codify anything. Dictionary makers are at
pains to capture usage, and usage is nothing if not ephemeral. The kings
english does not, in general, come from listening to the King ... or any
other authority ... speak.
When somebody says, "I think we ought to keep close to the defnition" they
are making a claim for the immutability of language, which, of course, is a
fairly silly claim.
These sorts of arguments remind me of original intent arguments with
respect to the supreme court. The argument is not, of course, whether we
are going to change our understanding of the constitution but how swiftly
we are going to change it.
The argument about whether we are comfortable to have gay couples live
amongst us in our communities like any other couples and the argument about
whether to call these arrangements "marriages" is a sign of magical
thinking. Now I grant you that magical thinking often WORKS, but it still
is magical thinking.
Think about the crisis in telephone land that occured when dials were
replaced by keys.
Or think about the strain in the language that has been produced by
feminism and the grammatical construction "each .... {she/he/they)".
Gloria Steinem suggested in the first issue of Ms Mag, that we introduce
the neologism "ter" as a singular neuter possessive. "Each man/woman to
ter own opinion." I wish we had done it. Because we didnt have the
courage or discipline to do it, I still have to suffer, 40 years later,
"Each man to their own opinion." "Their" has ceased to become a plural
possive and become a singular neuter possesive. I can hate it all I like,
but it is still contemporary usage.
Once we fully accept gay couples into our communities, the language will
just .... change.
Ok. That's all He told me to say.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <friam@redfish.com>
> Date: 11/11/2008 10:00:22 AM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 13
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam@redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
> 2. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
> 3. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts)
> 4. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Scott R. Powell)
> 5. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
> 6. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Owen Densmore)
> 7. Re: And speaking of levels of heaven (Douglas Roberts)
> 8. Are your skills obsolete? (Tom Johnson)
> 9. Scientists Turn Tequila into Diamonds (Jochen Fromm)
> 10. Obama, Proposition 8 (peggy miller)
> 11. Fewer "subscription required"s (Robert Holmes)
> 12. Re: Obama, Proposition 8 (glen e. p. ropella)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:52 -0700
> From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly
> good book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming?
>
> One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big
> bang is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into
> account the time extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not
> mentioned in the popular books.
>
> -- Owen
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
>
> > Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry out
> > the
> > work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And it's
> > actual
> > significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've already
> > got the
> > largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from
> > volunteer
> > efforts.
> > Robert
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Jack.
> >>
> >> If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the
> >> field
> >> of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who do
> >> work in
> >> cosmology-related fields..
> >>
> >> At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of
> >> meeting
> >> George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small
> >> group of 5 of
> >> us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us
> >> about
> >> cosmology for over an hour.
> >>
> >> --Doug
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:22:30 -0700
> From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read:
> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time
> calculated to the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem
> to take relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done
> but not mentioned in the popular books.
>
> -- Owen
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>
> > I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly
> > good book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming?
> >
> > One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big
> > bang is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into
> > account the time extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not
> > mentioned in the popular books.
> >
> > -- Owen
> >
> >
> > On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
> >
> >> Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry
> >> out the
> >> work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And
> >> it's actual
> >> significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've
> >> already got the
> >> largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from
> >> volunteer
> >> efforts.
> >> Robert
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Jack.
> >>>
> >>> If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in
> >>> the field
> >>> of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who
> >>> do work in
> >>> cosmology-related fields..
> >>>
> >>> At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of
> >>> meeting
> >>> George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small
> >>> group of 5 of
> >>> us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us
> >>> about
> >>> cosmology for over an hour.
> >>>
> >>> --Doug
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:46:14 -0700
> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Owen, two suggestions:
>
> 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and
> 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time"
>
> --Doug
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read:
> > One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time
calculated to
> > the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take
> > relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not
> > mentioned in the popular books.
> >
> > -- Owen
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> >
> > I'd love to do a cosmology read sometime. Is there a particularly good
> >> book in the field that is reasonably formal yet not overwhelming?
> >>
> >> One question I've always had with cosmology and the time to the big
bang
> >> is that does not seem to be relativistic effects taken into account
the time
> >> extrapolation. Certainly its been done but not mentioned in the
popular
> >> books.
> >>
> >> -- Owen
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
> >>
> >> Check out galaxyzoo.org - they need volunteers and you can carry out
the
> >>> work (categorizing galaxies) from the comfort of your sofa. And it's
> >>> actual
> >>> significant research that you'd be contributing to - they've already
got
> >>> the
> >>> largest and most reliable galaxy catalogue, and it's all from
volunteer
> >>> efforts.
> >>> Robert
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi, Jack.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the
> >>>> field
> >>>> of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who do
work
> >>>> in
> >>>> cosmology-related fields..
> >>>>
> >>>> At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of
meeting
> >>>> George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small group
of
> >>>> 5 of
> >>>> us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us
about
> >>>> cosmology for over an hour.
> >>>>
> >>>> --Doug
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ============================================================
> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081110/5ff2481
b/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:04:08 -0700
> From: "Scott R. Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello, All,
> Just to be clear George is not Oliver - Although Smoot attended MIT, he
was
> not the same Smoot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot> who was laid end
to
> end to measure the Harvard
Bridge<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Bridge>
> between Cambridge <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge,_Massachusetts>
> and Boston <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston,_Massachusetts>; this was
> his cousin Oliver R. Smoot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_R._Smoot>,
> an MIT alumnus who served as the chairman of the American National
Standards
>
Institute<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_National_Standards_Institute
>
> .
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot
>
> Scott Powell, creeping back into his Liberal Arts den
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Douglas Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > Hi, Jack.
> >
> > If I had it to do all over again I would quite possibly work in the
field
> > of cosmology in one regard or another. I'm envious of those who do
work in
> > cosmology-related fields..
> >
> > At last year's SuperComputing conference I had the privilege of meeting
> > George Smoot, Noble prize winner for physics in 2006. A small group of
5 of
> > us sat at the Berkeley booth one afternoon and he talked with us about
> > cosmology for over an hour.
> >
> > --Doug
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Jack Leibowitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >
> >> Doug,
> >>
> >> May I boast for a minute that my wife, retired from NASA, worked on
the
> >> HUBBLE and WMAPS. The deep field picture and many other Hubble pics
were
> >> made possible by her group. She was an analyst and programmer in those
> >> projects. A number of those pics, such as the deep field one, are in
the
> >> book we spoke of in our e-mail exchange.I am moved, as you are, by
those
> >> pictures.
> >>
> >> Jack.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> *From:* Douglas Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group<Friam@redfish.com>
> >> *Sent:* Sunday, November 09, 2008 2:15 PM
> >> *Subject:* [Norton AntiSpam] [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
> >>
> >> Here's a nice, long glimpse back towards our beginnings. *Much*
further
> >> back than 6.000 years ago, I might add. All the way back to when our
> >> observable universe was a mere 2 billion hears old. You should pull
down
> >> the image & stare at all the galaxy dots for a minute or two. It's
good for
> >> the soul...
> >>
> >> http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/pr-39-08.html
> >>
> >> My favorite photo in this class, however, is still the Hubble
ultra-deep
> >> field, in visible light looking back about 13 billion years:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field
> >>
> >>
> >> --Doug
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081110/37bc2f1
d/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:09:21 -0700
> From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
> > Owen, two suggestions:
> >
> > 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and
> > 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time"
> >
> > --Doug
>
> Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the Nobel,
> thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming constant,
> huge problems.
>
> And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted
> and wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the
> expansionary universe discoveries.
>
> But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem of
> "time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/mass
> distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the
> universe uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems
> at odds with relativity.
>
> Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after all,
> the entire universe that is expanding, thus observational problems
> cancel out, so to speak?
>
> -- Owen
>
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read:
> >> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time
> >> calculated to
> >> the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take
> >> relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not
> >> mentioned in the popular books.
> >>
> >> -- Owen
> >>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:12:04 -0700
> From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Damn. s/expanson/inflation/ below re: Weinberg.
>
> -- Owen
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
> >
> >> Owen, two suggestions:
> >>
> >> 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and
> >> 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time"
> >>
> >> --Doug
> >
> > Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the
> > Nobel, thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming
> > constant, huge problems.
> >
> > And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted
> > and wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the
> > expansionary universe discoveries.
> >
> > But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem
> > of "time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/
> > mass distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the
> > universe uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems
> > at odds with relativity.
> >
> > Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after
> > all, the entire universe that is expanding, thus observational
> > problems cancel out, so to speak?
> >
> > -- Owen
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read:
> >>> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time
> >>> calculated to
> >>> the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take
> >>> relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not
> >>> mentioned in the popular books.
> >>>
> >>> -- Owen
> >>>
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:20:31 -0700
> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And speaking of levels of heaven
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> A few years ago I had an email exchange with Weinberg in which I asked him
> if he planned to write a second edition of the "The First Three Minutes"
> where he might address some of the new observational data that has been
> published since the first edition was released, such as the sudden
> (cosmologically speaking) apparent acceleration in the rate of expansion
of
> the universe, dark matter, dark energy, Smoot's COBE findings, etc.
>
> Unfortunately, Weinberg said that he had no such plans. I did greatly
enjoy
> talking with Smoot on these topics last year, though.
>
> --Doug
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
> >
> > Owen, two suggestions:
> >>
> >> 1) Stephen Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", and
> >> 2) George Smoot's "Wrinkles in Time"
> >>
> >> --Doug
> >>
> >
> > Oddly enough, I've read both! I didn't connect Smoot with the Nobel,
> > thanks! I was amazed at his tenacity, patiently overcoming constant,
huge
> > problems.
> >
> > And Weinberg's book is an absolute gem as well; beautifully crafted and
> > wonderfully mature. I only wish it had been written after the
expansionary
> > universe discoveries.
> >
> > But as far as I can recall, neither book wrestled with the problem of
> > "time" in the early universe. We know both velocity and gravity/mass
> > distorts time. The description of time to the beginning of the universe
> > uses linear extrapolation as far as I can tell. This seems at odds with
> > relativity.
> >
> > Possibly it is not an issue within cosmology because it is, after all,
the
> > entire universe that is expanding, thus observational problems cancel
out,
> > so to speak?
> >
> > -- Owen
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Oops -- I miss-edited -- should read:
> >>> One question I've always had with cosmology is that the time
calculated
> >>> to
> >>> the big bang (via backwards extrapolation) does not seem to take
> >>> relativistic effects into account. Certainly its been done but not
> >>> mentioned in the popular books.
> >>>
> >>> -- Owen
> >>>
> >>>
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081110/b7459f7
e/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:35:04 -0700
> From: "Tom Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Are your skills obsolete?
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] com" <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> All:
>
> Some of us may recall Bruce Sterling's fun site, "Dead Media,"
> technologies that no longer are necessary or exist.
> http://www.deadmedia.org/
>
> The human side of all that can now be found at "Obsolete Skills"
> http://obsoleteskills.com/Skills/Skills
>
> Build your personal timeline of obsolescence, friends.
>
> -tom
>
> --
> ==========================================
> J. T. Johnson
> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> www.analyticjournalism.com
> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
> http://www.jtjohnson.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> existing model obsolete."
> -- Buckminster Fuller
> ==========================================
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:06:35 +0100
> From: "Jochen Fromm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Scientists Turn Tequila into Diamonds
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <Friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Do you have lots of Tequila in Santa Fe?
> http://www.physorg.com/news145255770.html
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:07:50 -0700
> From: "peggy miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is extremely
> important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which
includes
> "to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and wife"
> -- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet these
two
> requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the husband
and
> generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form a
legal
> marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and ignores the
> definition of marriage itself.
>
> Peggy Miller
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081111/096cb46
7/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:51:47 -0700
> From: "Robert Holmes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Fewer "subscription required"s
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> A neat little tip (via lifehacker) that improves the odds of avoiding
those
> "subscription required" messages when you are searching for academic
papers:
>
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/11/when-google-scholars-integration-wi
th.html
>
> Robert
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
<http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20081111/b41c919
8/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:55:52 -0800
> From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama, Proposition 8
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Thus spake peggy miller circa 11/11/2008 08:07 AM:
> > Related to the issue of legalizing gay marriage, I think it is extremely
> > important to stick with the Webster definition of marriage -- which
includes
> > "to unite in a close personal way: AND "a legal union as husband and
wife"
> > -- I think if two people are the age of consenting adults and meet
these two
> > requirements (since gay couples can choose who is generally the husband
and
> > generally the wife if they want to) then they should be able to form a
legal
> > marriage. I think that anything else ignores their rights, and ignores
the
> > definition of marriage itself.
>
> But if we argue from the dictionary we may end up with arguments like
> the following.
>
> While all the below agree with your point:
>
> 1) "marriage" generally refers to a spousal relationship and
> 2) "spouse" is a term meaning things like vow, pledge, ritual, etc, and
> 3) "husband" generally means master of the house,
>
> "wife" really is defined to be a female. So, while lesbian couples can
> choose who is the husband and who is the wife; gay male couples can't.
> They can choose the husband; but neither can be a wife.
>
> Personally, I think marriage is an obsolete concept. We should
> completely separate legal contracts from religious ceremonies and purge
> "marriage" from the law entirely. It should be in the exact same
> category as baptism.
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam@redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 65, Issue 13
> *************************************
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
