Re: Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida

[Dave Land]

On Oct 9, 2004, at 7:02 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Julia Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:53 PM
Subject: Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cyberwar-04l.html
Maybe Gaia doesn't like spam.
My Mom, who is a director for a Bigass Insurance company has always
said that 3/4 of all the insurance fraud in the US originates in
Florida.
Voter fraud
Insurance fraud
Spam
Think there is some ethical/moral connection?
The only time I experienced identity theft was by someone in
Hallendale, FL. Not surprisingly, Hallendale is within commute
distance of the credit-card issuer's offices.
Dave
Inside Job Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Oct 9, 2004, at 8:59 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

From: "Julia Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cyberwar-04l.html
 Maybe Gaia doesn't like spam.

My Mom, who is a director for a Bigass Insurance company has always
said that 3/4 of all the insurance fraud in the US originates in
Florida.
Voter fraud
Insurance fraud
Spam
Vincent Lecavalier, the Keys, Mickey Mouse...where does it end?!
And all those Cubans. Former Cubans. You know, the ones who cry 
incessantly because their ill-got gains were stolen from them by 
Castro. The ones who've had a disproportionate effect on US politics 
for 50 years.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 09:02:09 -0500
- Original Message -
From: "Julia Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:53 PM
Subject: Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cyberwar-04l.html
>
> Maybe Gaia doesn't like spam.
>
My Mom, who is a director for a Bigass Insurance company has always
said that 3/4 of all the insurance fraud in the US originates in
Florida.
Voter fraud
Insurance fraud
Spam
Vincent Lecavalier, the Keys, Mickey Mouse...where does it end?!
-Travis
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Julia Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:53 PM
Subject: Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida


> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cyberwar-04l.html
>
> Maybe Gaia doesn't like spam.
>

My Mom, who is a director for a Bigass Insurance company has always
said that 3/4 of all the insurance fraud in the US originates in
Florida.
Voter fraud
Insurance fraud
Spam

Think there is some ethical/moral connection?


xponent
The Scumbag State Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Another explanation for the hurricanes hitting Florida

[Julia Randolph]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cyberwar-04l.html

Maybe Gaia doesn't like spam.

 Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Explanation


>
> On 17 Nov 2003, at 4:12 pm, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
>
> > Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > Let me understand.  You are seriously suggesting that viewing
> > physics through a computer science lens is as valid as viewing
> > physics through a physics lens?
> >
> > Somewhat off topic, but what do you think of
> >
> > Structure and Interpretaion of Classical Mechanics
> > Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom
> > 2001, MIT Press
> > ISBN 0-262-019455-4
> >
> > ?
> >
> > This book does not involve using `a computer science lens', but as it
> > says in the Preface
> >
> > Classical mechanics is deceptively simple.  Traditional
> > mathematical notation contributes to this problem.  Symbols have
> > ambiguous meanings, 
> >
> > [in this book] Computational algorithms are used to communicate
> > precisely some of the methods used in the analysis of dynamical
> > phenomena.  Expressing the methods of variational mechanics in a
> > computer language forces them to be unambiguous and
> > computationally effective.
> >
> >
> > To bring the question back to topic, would it be useful to consider
> > thinking about a photon's actions through a computer science lens as a
> > *metaphor*?  (In this case, the action is specified by a `method'
> > appropriate to the context, where the actions are either going through
> > two slits at the same time, like a wave upon the water, or else
> > behaving like a stone.)
> >
> > Then, could the metaphor eventually be tranformed into physics?  If
> > so, how?
>
> Aren't the mathematical descriptions of physics just metaphors?

For what?  We have models; if they fit observations, they are good
theories.  If they don't, they are not.

>There  is the 'ding an sich' and there is the model. Worrying about the
> metaphysics of models seems daft to me. The 'thing itself' is the final
> arbiter.

Science has to do with observations, not things in themselves.  How do you
access the think in itself?

>If the model has problems then that is the problem of the
> model since reality carries on regardless :)

Reality carries on, sure, but science is not concerned with the
relationship between observations and things in themselves; its only
concerned with modeling observations.  Now it is true, that physicists are
much more likely to think about this than biologists or chemists.  The
reason for this is fairly straightforward.  Chemists, biologists, etc. can
usually use the convenient fiction that we are living in a classical world
without contradicting experimental results. Physicists cannot do QM without
dropping this fiction.  So, they tend to think about why they can't more
often.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 18 Nov 2003, at 2:41 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
The reality of QM is that it is a systematic set of rules and equations
that provide a good fit to observation.  Computational methods allow 
us to
use things like perturbation theory to obtain predictions that would 
have
been impossible to obtain 100 years ago, even if the algorithms were 
clear.
So, computaiton is very worthwhile there.

Using  Comp. Sci images to interpret QM is legitimate; but by 
definition
this is doing metaphysics, not physics.


But that could be turned into a program, and then it wouldn't be 
metaphysics...

So, if someone wanted to do this,
then it would be interesting to see the systematic interpreation and
compare it to MWI, Copenhaugen, etc.
As an aside, by definition, Comp. Sci is based on non-so-hidden 
underlying
variables, which can fully be expressed in another system.  Physics 
hidden
variable theories have been falsified.  Does that help?
An OOP model wouldn't need the reality principle. It is meaningless to 
ask what a polymorphic OOP particle was when you weren't interacting 
with it.

And standard refactorings are 'Replace Parameter with Method', 'Replace 
Conditional with Polymorphism' and such to get rid of variables...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat
grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation


> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> Let me understand.  You are seriously suggesting that viewing
> physics through a computer science lens is as valid as viewing
> physics through a physics lens?
>
> Somewhat off topic, but what do you think of
>
> Structure and Interpretaion of Classical Mechanics
> Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom
> 2001, MIT Press
> ISBN 0-262-019455-4
>
> ?
>
> This book does not involve using `a computer science lens', but as it
> says in the Preface
>
> Classical mechanics is deceptively simple.  Traditional
> mathematical notation contributes to this problem.  Symbols have
> ambiguous meanings, 
>
> [in this book] Computational algorithms are used to communicate
> precisely some of the methods used in the analysis of dynamical
> phenomena.  Expressing the methods of variational mechanics in a
> computer language forces them to be unambiguous and
> computationally effective.

That sounds like a fairly reasonable thing.


> To bring the question back to topic, would it be useful to consider
> thinking about a photon's actions through a computer science lens as a
> *metaphor*?  (In this case, the action is specified by a `method'
> appropriate to the context, where the actions are either going through
> two slits at the same time, like a wave upon the water, or else
> behaving like a stone.)

I'm  not sure about the answer to this because I'm not working as a
teacher, and do not have a firm grip on what would help people make the
shift in viewpoint that facilitates understanding QM.  The accepted
understanding among physicists is that physics models what we observe,
period.   Thus, we have the "shut up and calculate"   interpretation
favored by those who tend towards realism.

The reality of QM is that it is a systematic set of rules and equations
that provide a good fit to observation.  Computational methods allow us to
use things like perturbation theory to obtain predictions that would have
been impossible to obtain 100 years ago, even if the algorithms were clear.
So, computaiton is very worthwhile there.

Using  Comp. Sci images to interpret QM is legitimate; but by definition
this is doing metaphysics, not physics.  So, if someone wanted to do this,
then it would be interesting to see the systematic interpreation and
compare it to MWI, Copenhaugen, etc.

As an aside, by definition, Comp. Sci is based on non-so-hidden underlying
variables, which can fully be expressed in another system.  Physics hidden
variable theories have been falsified.  Does that help?

Dan M.


> Then, could the metaphor eventually be tranformed into physics?  If
> so, how?


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Sonja van Baardwijk]

Julia Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Sonja van Baardwijk wrote:

 

I HAVE NO KILLFILE. The first one saying I have a killfile ... will ...  
be ... eh ... smothered in ...eh ...  chocolate sause. ;o)
   

And this would be bad how?  :)
 

Eh Well it is awfully messy? Or something hm I guess you're 
telling me that it is not enough deterrence. I'll think of something 
else then. ;o)

	Julia

funny, didn't have massive chocolate cravings while I was pregnant this
time around, have them now.
Me too. But I've started to not have chocolate around. Else I'll grow 
too much in all the wrong directions. :o)

Sonja ;o)
GCU: Chocolatea
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 17 Nov 2003, at 4:12 pm, Robert J. Chassell wrote:

Dan Minette wrote:

Let me understand.  You are seriously suggesting that viewing
physics through a computer science lens is as valid as viewing
physics through a physics lens?
Somewhat off topic, but what do you think of

Structure and Interpretaion of Classical Mechanics
Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom
2001, MIT Press
ISBN 0-262-019455-4
?

This book does not involve using `a computer science lens', but as it
says in the Preface
Classical mechanics is deceptively simple.  Traditional
mathematical notation contributes to this problem.  Symbols have
ambiguous meanings, 
[in this book] Computational algorithms are used to communicate
precisely some of the methods used in the analysis of dynamical
phenomena.  Expressing the methods of variational mechanics in a
computer language forces them to be unambiguous and
computationally effective.
To bring the question back to topic, would it be useful to consider
thinking about a photon's actions through a computer science lens as a
*metaphor*?  (In this case, the action is specified by a `method'
appropriate to the context, where the actions are either going through
two slits at the same time, like a wave upon the water, or else
behaving like a stone.)
Then, could the metaphor eventually be tranformed into physics?  If
so, how?
Aren't the mathematical descriptions of physics just metaphors? There 
is the 'ding an sich' and there is the model. Worrying about the 
metaphysics of models seems daft to me. The 'thing itself' is the final 
arbiter. If the model has problems then that is the problem of the 
model since reality carries on regardless :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat
grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Robert J. Chassell]

Dan Minette wrote:

Let me understand.  You are seriously suggesting that viewing
physics through a computer science lens is as valid as viewing
physics through a physics lens?

Somewhat off topic, but what do you think of

Structure and Interpretaion of Classical Mechanics
Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom
2001, MIT Press
ISBN 0-262-019455-4

?

This book does not involve using `a computer science lens', but as it
says in the Preface

Classical mechanics is deceptively simple.  Traditional
mathematical notation contributes to this problem.  Symbols have
ambiguous meanings, 

[in this book] Computational algorithms are used to communicate
precisely some of the methods used in the analysis of dynamical
phenomena.  Expressing the methods of variational mechanics in a
computer language forces them to be unambiguous and
computationally effective.


To bring the question back to topic, would it be useful to consider
thinking about a photon's actions through a computer science lens as a
*metaphor*?  (In this case, the action is specified by a `method'
appropriate to the context, where the actions are either going through
two slits at the same time, like a wave upon the water, or else
behaving like a stone.)

Then, could the metaphor eventually be tranformed into physics?  If
so, how?

-- 
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com  GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Explanation

[Horn, John]

> From: Alberto Monteiro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Steve Sloan II wrote:
> >
> > > I heard that Hubberd made up Scientology as a scam to make
> > > lots of money, and didn't really believe at all. Does anyone
> > > know how accurate/inaccurate this is?
> >
> > I remember reading somewhere that Hubbard made a bet with
another
> > SF writer about it. He bet that he could create a false religion
> > to make money, "like psychology", not long before Scientology
> > started. I wish I knew where I read it, though.
> >
> It doesn't make sense: if he believed that the new scam would
> make him rich, there was no need to bet - unless he did
> sometime make public that the whole thing was a scam.

Harlan Ellison has, at various times, claimed he was there when
Hubbard made the statement and made up Scientology.  I'm not sure if
he was the one who the bet was made with or not.

 - jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 16 Nov 2003, at 11:36 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
Right, the problem is that particles and waves were both partial
understandings.   What was needed was a model that included an 
inherently
unobservable wave function, collapse of the wave function into an
eigenstate, etc.  What was needed was a paradigm shift.

Now, that's a word that has been tremendously overused and misused.
However, in this case it is very valid.  Physics has had two paradigm
shifts in ~3000 years, and this was the second one.
So, lets go back to different religions.  All one needs to argue is 
that,
like particles and waves, different religions have partial imperfect
understandings
But how partial and imperfect do you have to go to reconcile the 
differences? It would appear that pretty much every specific claim in 
any particular religion has to go. Is there one god or a multiplicity 
of gods or no gods at all just spirits? Was Jesus the son of god, just 
a prophet or just a man? When we die do we go to heaven or purgatory or 
dissipate to nothing or get reincarnated? 'Partial and imperfect' is 
all very well, but I don't see what is left. 'All of the above' is not 
a good answer :)


 "now I see as through a glass darkly, then I shall see face
to face."   Some understandings can still be better than others, and 
some
can be way off target, as was the caloric theory of heat.
That may be so, but how can you tell which are which?

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my 
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my 
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation


>
> On 16 Nov 2003, at 6:21 am, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > Let me understand.  You are seriously suggesting that viewing physics
> > through a computer science lens is as valid as viewing physics through
> > a
> > physics lens?
>
> It seems to be better actually :)

Uh-huh.  I'd appreciate a computer programming lens unifed field theory.
;-)


> >  By definition, a particle is pointline.  When it exhibits
> > behavior that is not pointlike, it must be treated in another manner
> > (e.g.
> > rigid body).  By definition, a wave is spread over a volumn.  These are
> > mutually contradicting.
>
> That would be a big problem for the way you look at things then...


Right, the problem is that particles and waves were both partial
understandings.   What was needed was a model that included an inherently
unobservable wave function, collapse of the wave function into an
eigenstate, etc.  What was needed was a paradigm shift.

Now, that's a word that has been tremendously overused and misused.
However, in this case it is very valid.  Physics has had two paradigm
shifts in ~3000 years, and this was the second one.

So, lets go back to different religions.  All one needs to argue is that,
like particles and waves, different religions have partial imperfect
understandings "now I see as through a glass darkly, then I shall see face
to face."   Some understandings can still be better than others, and some
can be way off target, as was the caloric theory of heat.

So, I view the arguments about the differences in understanding as no more
persuasive than the question "well which slit did the photon go through?"

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Julia Thompson]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Sonja van Baardwijk wrote:

> I HAVE NO KILLFILE. The first one saying I have a killfile ... will ...  
> be ... eh ... smothered in ...eh ...  chocolate sause. ;o)

And this would be bad how?  :)

Julia

funny, didn't have massive chocolate cravings while I was pregnant this
time around, have them now...

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 16 Nov 2003, at 6:21 am, Dan Minette wrote:

Let me understand.  You are seriously suggesting that viewing physics
through a computer science lens is as valid as viewing physics through 
a
physics lens?
It seems to be better actually :)

 By definition, a particle is pointline.  When it exhibits
behavior that is not pointlike, it must be treated in another manner 
(e.g.
rigid body).  By definition, a wave is spread over a volumn.  These are
mutually contradicting.
That would be a big problem for the way you look at things then...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my 
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my 
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Sonja van Baardwijk]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

At 05:31 PM 11/14/03 +, William T Goodall wrote:

Perhaps it is the way he expresses himself rather than the actual 
content?
Are you suggesting that the way John expresses himself to those with 
whom he disagrees is more offensive to them than the stuff The Fool 
posts is to those with religious beliefs?
There are a couple of people on either side of the religious spectrum 
who could do with an occasional mouth wash. :o)

Sonja :O)
GCU: Happy soapy bubbles floating in the sky.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Sonja van Baardwijk]

Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message - 
From: "Sonja van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:12 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation

 

Doug Pensinger wrote:

   

For the information of those who haven't been on the list for very
long, or who might not understand even though they have, the reason I
do not respond to JDG is that he and I have had several less than
civilized encounters and I decided after the last one (over a year
ago) that the list would be better off if we did not interact.
This is not an entirely selfless act as the aforementioned encounters
tend to be unpleasant and stressfull and I'd just as soon do without
even if it means missing a spirited debate (which I enjoy).
 

Well you've got my support and I have to say that I do the same. My
debate encounters with JDG (and strangly enough only with JDG) have not
been exactly civilised in the past either. And for that I am truly
sorry. But by now I've been ignoring him for a long time and it works
for me. Let me assure you that you get used to it even if you mis out on
a couple of debates. :o) Ever since I got the 'you are a nazi' as well
as a couple of other even less flattering insults from him I didn't see
any point in continued debate on his pet peeves over and over again. I
hold to the viewpoint that we oldtimers by now know where we stand. That
doesn't mean that I'd not be happy to discuss old enraging topics again
with others though. ;o)
   

I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who are
religious are expected to regularly read posts that proclaim them evil,
mentally defective, etc. and let the insults just slide off their backs.
People who are criticized by conservatives like JDG have the right to be
indignant.
I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore their
posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
righteous indignation.
 

It's not the enragement or the indignation I have a problem with. 
Indignation about a subjects shows strong feelings. Usually this is a 
good thing. It makes one think about how one feels about a certain 
subject and why. It's the being called names that makes it 
uninteresting. I still have a couple of apologies coming from JDG for 
being called a nazi (for me the worst possible insult) after bringing up 
severall subjects that went against his world view but that were 
eventually proven true. It's his callousness with those insults and his 
inabillity to live and let live that makes it for me uninteresting.

I HAVE NO KILLFILE. The first one saying I have a killfile ... will ... 
be ... eh ... smothered in ...eh ...  chocolate sause. ;o)

Sonja
ROU: Perceptions of asymmetry in insults are probably incorrect due to 
interference of the personal point of view.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation


> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > No, as I've never stated you were evil.  Did JDG ever call you evil?
> >
> > Dan M.
> >
> > No, but JDG does not post 20 times a day that you are evil.
> >
>
> How many times has he called you, personally, evil, as opposed to calling
> religion evil?

> Now I'm not excusing his excesses at all, but you can call drugs evil and
> not mean drug users are evil, right?

Technically you are right by my way of thinking.  For example, one could
not say that Stalin _was_ evil because he was created in the image and
likeness of God.  But, he _did_ evil, he supported evil, etc.

So, the Fool didn't technically personally call me evil; he just lumped me
in a group of evil people.  But, according to his book, I'm a disciple of
evil; I do evil; I teach our youth evil; I spread evil.  If one is not
speaking in terms of precise technicalities, that is calling me evil.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Explanation


>
> On 15 Nov 2003, at 9:34 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: Explanation
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On 15 Nov 2003, at 3:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: Explanation
> >>>
> >>>> I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
> >>>> religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones
> >>>> from
> >>>> the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
> >>>
> >>> In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a
> >>> particle.
> >>> ;-)
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't think so. A photon can be a wave and a particle in the sense
> >> that it behaves like a wave and it behaves like a particle.
> >>
> >> Clearly these are not mutually exclusive attributes.
> >
> > Actually they are.
>
> Not from where I sit.
>
> >
> >
> >> That it is true  that a photon is like a wave does not make it false
> >> that
> > it is like a
> >> particle.
> >
> > Literally speaking, it certainly does.
>
> What does literally have to do with anything? You view things through a
> physics lens and I view things through computer science lens.

Let me understand.  You are seriously suggesting that viewing physics
through a computer science lens is as valid as viewing physics through a
physics lens?  By definition, a particle is pointline.  When it exhibits
behavior that is not pointlike, it must be treated in another manner (e.g.
rigid body).  By definition, a wave is spread over a volumn.  These are
mutually contradicting.

Dan M.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:40 PM 11/15/03 +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
>
>> Alberto Monteiro - who would like to have all horoscopes
>> in the newspapers have their authors subject to being sued
>> when their predictions didn't come true >:-)
>
> But the ones I see are vague enough that there's be plenty of room for the
> defense to be reasonably successful.  :)
>
You *read* horoscopes??? Is there any listowner available so
that I can request that you are banned from the list???


I read 'em, too, on occasion.  They're on the comics page, after all, and I 
could always use another good laugh . . .



Why Was The "Special Personal Toll-Free Number Only For You" That Miss Cleo 
E-Mailed Me The Same Number My Friend Got? Maru



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:34 PM 11/15/03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation
>
> On 15 Nov 2003, at 3:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: Explanation
> >
> >> I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
> >> religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones
> >> from
> >> the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
> >
> > In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a
> > particle.
> > ;-)
> >
>
> I don't think so. A photon can be a wave and a particle in the sense
> that it behaves like a wave and it behaves like a particle.
>
> Clearly these are not mutually exclusive attributes.
Actually they are.

>That it is true  that a photon is like a wave does not make it false that
it is like a
> particle.
Literally speaking, it certainly does.

> On the other hand, with respect to the claims of religion, for certain
> claims to be true other claims of other religions do have to be false.
>
> So, I don't see the similarity :)
I appreciate that.  Let me start a description of the similarities with a
question:  how can a particle go through two different slits?


Umm . . . umm . . .



;-)

How Many Angels Can Sit On The Point Of A Pin? Maru



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Russell Chapman]

From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones
from
the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
Why does it have to be a false religion. I've always thought a cult was 
where the members no longer operated within the accepted norms of the 
community within which they live - whether it is a religious thing, a 
cyberpunk thing, a doomsday thing or even a political extremist thing...

Obviously the definition is a bit open...

Cheers
Russell C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:18 AM 11/15/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:


On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, John D. Giorgis wrote:

> Then again, maybe none of us are perfect.

Maybe?

I believe that nobody on this list is perfect.

I believe that a lot of people on this list are trying, anyway.  And some
are trying in the other sense of the word.  :)  And maybe some people are
trying in both senses, just not at the same time.


Hey!  I resemble that remark!



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> Julia Thompson wrote:
> >
> >> Alberto Monteiro - who would like to have all horoscopes
> >> in the newspapers have their authors subject to being sued
> >> when their predictions didn't come true >:-)
> >
> > But the ones I see are vague enough that there's be plenty of room for the
> > defense to be reasonably successful.  :)
> >
> You *read* horoscopes??? Is there any listowner available so
> that I can request that you are banned from the list???

They're on the same page as other stuff I read.  Sometimes I accidentally
read the first sentence of one.  And I used to read them when I was 10 and
didn't really know any better.  By the time I was 12, I didn't pay any
attention to them.  Plus, you can read them for entertainment value, kinda
like Nostradamus.  :)  And sometimes a set of horoscopes can be
inconsistent, if some of them refer to other signs, and you can *really*
scoff and feel superior to the idiot who wrote it.

As for banning from the list, I think that people who claim that the Dean 
Drive really works are higher on the list than people who read horoscopes 
to laugh at them.  :)

Oh, wait, I'm a listowner.  Not sure I can ban myself.  Nick?

Julia

who doesn't ever again want to have a RL conversation with someone
claiming that the Dean Drive really works
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Doug Pensinger]

John D. Giorgis  wrote:

Secondly, I have begun a post once "Look, punk"   IIRC, I meant that
phrase to be a bit more humorous, in an albeit dark way,  than it ended 
up sounding
I'm not going to tell you what you were thinking when you posted, but as I 
recall you later described the depth of your anger when you had posted.

 but nevertheless, I should not have I done it, and I apologize for 
that.
Apology accepted.  For my part, I apologize for my part in said imbroglio.

Nevertheless, among the things I have not done is hold a grudge for 
years, and refused all attempts at an apology since then.
I have read no apologies, on list or off, until now.  And I believe I've 
read all your posts.  8^)

Then again, maybe none of us are perfect.
No, no one is perfect, nor are they expected to be.  As I said in my 
explanation, I have avoided directly responding to you for the benefit of 
the list and for my own mental health, not because I held a grudge.  In 
fact, I will continue this moratorium for any and all political 
discussions.

Look at it this way.  You always get the last word. 8^)

Peace
...and harmony.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 15 Nov 2003, at 9:34 pm, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation

On 15 Nov 2003, at 3:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation
I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones
from
the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a
particle.
;-)
I don't think so. A photon can be a wave and a particle in the sense
that it behaves like a wave and it behaves like a particle.
Clearly these are not mutually exclusive attributes.
Actually they are.
Not from where I sit.



That it is true  that a photon is like a wave does not make it false 
that
it is like a
particle.
Literally speaking, it certainly does.
What does literally have to do with anything? You view things through a 
physics lens and I view things through computer science lens. To me it 
seems a 'photon' inherits from two abstract classes 'wave' and 
'particle' and exhibits polymorphism so that it can be one or the other 
in different contexts. Utterly unusual. [1]

On the other hand, with respect to the claims of religion, for certain
claims to be true other claims of other religions do have to be false.
So, I don't see the similarity :)
I appreciate that.  Let me start a description of the similarities 
with a
question:  how can a particle go through two different slits?
Because its 'wave' methods get called when it does that?

[1] Actually I don't like multiple inheritance, so lets say a photon 
instantiates two different protocols 'wave' and 'particle'  :) Or 
interfaces to use yet another variant of the terminology.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so 
few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping 
looks so silly." - Randy Cohen.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Alberto Monteiro]

Julia Thompson wrote:
>
>> Alberto Monteiro - who would like to have all horoscopes
>> in the newspapers have their authors subject to being sued
>> when their predictions didn't come true >:-)
>
> But the ones I see are vague enough that there's be plenty of room for the
> defense to be reasonably successful.  :)
>
You *read* horoscopes??? Is there any listowner available so
that I can request that you are banned from the list???

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Alberto Monteiro]

Steve Sloan II wrote:
>
> > I heard that Hubberd made up Scientology as a scam to make
> > lots of money, and didn't really believe at all. Does anyone
> > know how accurate/inaccurate this is?
>
> I remember reading somewhere that Hubbard made a bet with another
> SF writer about it. He bet that he could create a false religion
> to make money, "like psychology", not long before Scientology
> started. I wish I knew where I read it, though.
>
It doesn't make sense: if he believed that the new scam would
make him rich, there was no need to bet - unless he did
sometime make public that the whole thing was a scam.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation


>
> On 15 Nov 2003, at 3:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: Explanation
> >
> >> I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
> >> religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones
> >> from
> >> the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
> >
> > In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a
> > particle.
> > ;-)
> >
>
> I don't think so. A photon can be a wave and a particle in the sense
> that it behaves like a wave and it behaves like a particle.
>
> Clearly these are not mutually exclusive attributes.

Actually they are.


>That it is true  that a photon is like a wave does not make it false that
it is like a
> particle.

Literally speaking, it certainly does.

> On the other hand, with respect to the claims of religion, for certain
> claims to be true other claims of other religions do have to be false.
>
> So, I don't see the similarity :)

I appreciate that.  Let me start a description of the similarities with a
question:  how can a particle go through two different slits?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 15 Nov 2003, at 3:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation
I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones 
from
the true ones? And how can more than one be true?
In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a 
particle.
;-)

I don't think so. A photon can be a wave and a particle in the sense 
that it behaves like a wave and it behaves like a particle.

Clearly these are not mutually exclusive attributes. That it is true 
that a photon is like a wave does not make it false that it is like a 
particle.

On the other hand, with respect to the claims of religion, for certain 
claims to be true other claims of other religions do have to be false.

So, I don't see the similarity :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Those who study history are doomed to repeat it.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 15 Nov 2003, at 5:02 pm, Steve Sloan II wrote:

Dan Minette wrote:

> I heard that Hubberd made up Scientology as a scam to make
> lots of money, and didn't really believe at all. Does anyone
> know how accurate/inaccurate this is?
I remember reading somewhere that Hubbard made a bet with another
SF writer about it. He bet that he could create a false religion
to make money, "like psychology", not long before Scientology
started. I wish I knew where I read it, though.
He came up with Dianetics first though didn't he? Which is 'like 
psychology' :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my 
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my 
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Steve Sloan II]

Dan Minette wrote:

> I heard that Hubberd made up Scientology as a scam to make
> lots of money, and didn't really believe at all. Does anyone
> know how accurate/inaccurate this is?
I remember reading somewhere that Hubbard made a bet with another
SF writer about it. He bet that he could create a false religion
to make money, "like psychology", not long before Scientology
started. I wish I knew where I read it, though.
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Scientology Re: Explanation

[John D. Giorgis]

At 09:22 AM 11/15/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>I heard that Hubberd made up Scientology as a scam to make lots of money,
>and didn't really believe at all.  Does anyone know how accurate/inaccurate
>this is?

He never said the above publicly, but years before founding Scientology he
made a comment about how founding a religion is the biggest tax break in
the world.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, John D. Giorgis wrote:

> Then again, maybe none of us are perfect.

Maybe?

I believe that nobody on this list is perfect.

I believe that a lot of people on this list are trying, anyway.  And some 
are trying in the other sense of the word.  :)  And maybe some people are 
trying in both senses, just not at the same time.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> Alberto Monteiro - who would like to have all horoscopes
> in the newspapers have their authors subject to being sued
> when their predictions didn't come true >:-)

But the ones I see are vague enough that there's be plenty of room for the 
defense to be reasonably successful.  :)

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation

> I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false
> religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones from
> the true ones? And how can more than one be true?

In a manner similar to the ability of a photon to be a wave and a particle.
;-)

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation


> At 04:10 AM 11/15/03 +, Andrew Crystall wrote:
> >On 15 Nov 2003 at 1:22, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew Crystall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not you. I don't think either of the people I killfiled are that
> > > > regular posters anymore. (no-one else is quoting them anyway)
> > > >
> > > > I have a few on the culture list, because the individuals are
> > > > scientoligists and made them offensive to me off the list.
> > > >
> > > So you are also fanatically anti-religious, for some specific
> > > religions.
> > >
> > > I am surrounded by fanatics!!!
> >
> >Anti-religion? No.
> >Anti-scientolgist? YES.
> >
> >Scientology is a *dangerous* UFO Cult
>
>
> I didn't realize UFOs were involved.  But, then, I've not made a detailed
> study of it.

I heard that Hubberd made up Scientology as a scam to make lots of money,
and didn't really believe at all.  Does anyone know how accurate/inaccurate
this is?

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[John D. Giorgis]

O.k., I suppose that I have a moral obligation to step in to this
discussion, particularly following Dan's observation.

As perhaps the author of the most famous killfile in list history (in re: a
former listmember) I certainly am not going to bash anyone for setting up a
killfile.   I think there are many reasonable reasons for doing so.   For
example, in answer to Erik's question, yes I still have you in my killfile
(or more accurately, I have your posts filtered into my spam bin, where if
a reply to one of your post's interests me, I can go back and reference the
original.   As I stated at the time, I have a particular aversion to
reading the "f" word, particularly after a long day at work.   And this is
not just about you, the only novel I have ever stopped reading was one
where the author tossed around the "f" word like cand.   Its just something
I don't like, and since you have stated in the strongest possible terms
that you will not moderate your language, I have decided that the potential
benefit I get from regularly reading your posts is outweighed by the risk
and cost of the distaste I might feel from reading your posts.

Anyhow, this post is not about you, it is about Doug... and my point is
that I certainly defend Doug's right to determine that the distaste he may
feel from reading my posts, outweighs the benefits he may get from reading
them.

With that being said, I would like to apologize to the List for starting
this entire thread of discussion.   The tagline of mine that started this
whole thing was an expression of sheer frustration on my part.   Doug has
consistently made many posts that are critical of the Bush Administration
and its foreign policy, and unfortunately there are only two people on this
List who consistently support the Bush Administration and its foreign
policy, when Doug killfiles one of them, he effectively immunizes himself
from nearly 50% of the criticism that he is likely to receive.In this
particular case, I thought that I had some very powerful critiques of
Doug's ideas, and it was just very frustrating to realize that he would
never see these counterpoints to these ideas, and I cracked and expressed
my frustration at a perfectly acceptable publicly.   My apologies for that.

JDG

___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[John D. Giorgis]

At 07:23 PM 11/14/2003 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>> I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore their
>> posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
>> religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
>> grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
>> righteous indignation.
>
>This is one of the most ill considered posts I've ever seen you post, 
>Dan.  I have no idea what religion or conservatism have to do with it.  I 
>do know that JDG has referenced Hilter in _several_ posts - is there a 
>greater insult than that?  Have I ever begun a post "Look, punk..."?

First, I do not think that merely "referencing" Hitler is an insult.   In
today's society, there is very little agreement on the definition of
"evil," so much so that many people believe that "evil" hardly or even
never exists in the world.   The one excpetion to that is that Hitler is a
nearly universally-accepted example of evil, so if one wishes to discuss
evil in the world of today, Hitler makes a good reference.

Secondly, I have begun a post once "Look, punk"   IIRC, I meant that
phrase to be a bit more humorous, in an albeit dark way,  than it ended up
sounding but nevertheless, I should not have I done it, and I apologize
for that.

Nevertheless, among the things I have not done is hold a grudge for years,
and refused all attempts at an apology since then.

Then again, maybe none of us are perfect.

Peace,

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[John D. Giorgis]

At 11:25 PM 11/14/2003 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>> No, as I've never stated you were evil.  Did JDG ever call you evil?
>>
>> Dan M.
>>
>> No, but JDG does not post 20 times a day that you are evil.
>>
>
>How many times has he called you, personally, evil, as opposed to calling 
>religion evil?
>
>Now I'm not excusing his excesses at all, but you can call drugs evil and 
>not mean drug users are evil, right?

Are you doubting that The Fool thinks that all Christians, Republicans, and
conservatives are evil?In particular, are you doubting that The Fool
considers me evil?

The Fool, after all, has made it quite clear that some points can be made
with a "wink, wink, nod, nod."   

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[John D. Giorgis]

At 02:19 PM 11/14/2003 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
>how many religious people on list

Very free from my estimation.

>how many very non-religious people on list

Certainly more than the former.

>how many people have killfiles

Well, I would be interested in the results of Jon's proposed poll.

>if killfiles by religious people have primarily non-religious people
>if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily religious people

Don't know the answer to that one.   But I suppose that it is worth noting
that perhaps the most virulently anti-religious person on this List
obviously hasn't made it into my killfile - so I do not think that the
killfile function has a single determining variable.

JDG


___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 11/14/2003 9:54:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> All right, OK, very well then! --  face" with glasses and sits with chin on fist> 
> Play ball!
Ata girl
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 15 Nov 2003, at 4:10 am, Andrew Crystall wrote:

On 15 Nov 2003 at 1:22, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

Andrew Crystall wrote:
Not you. I don't think either of the people I killfiled are that
regular posters anymore. (no-one else is quoting them anyway)
I have a few on the culture list, because the individuals are
scientoligists and made them offensive to me off the list.
So you are also fanatically anti-religious, for some specific
religions.
I am surrounded by fanatics!!!
Anti-religion? No.
Anti-scientolgist? YES.
Scientology is a *dangerous* UFO Cult

I presume you mean by 'Cult' a 'false religion'. But isn't a false 
religion a religion too? Or if not, how do you tell the false ones from 
the true ones? And how can more than one be true?

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my 
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my 
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:26:21AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> I didn't realize UFOs were involved.  But, then, I've not made a
> detailed study of it.

No one has. THAT's why their unidentified!


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 15 Nov 2003, at 1:26 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

At 04:10 AM 11/15/03 +, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 15 Nov 2003 at 1:22, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> Andrew Crystall wrote:
> >
> > Not you. I don't think either of the people I killfiled are that
> > regular posters anymore. (no-one else is quoting them anyway)
> >
> > I have a few on the culture list, because the individuals are
> > scientoligists and made them offensive to me off the list.
> >
> So you are also fanatically anti-religious, for some specific
> religions.
>
> I am surrounded by fanatics!!!
Anti-religion? No.
Anti-scientolgist? YES.
Scientology is a *dangerous* UFO Cult


I didn't realize UFOs were involved.  But, then, I've not made a 
detailed study of it.

Body hairs are actually alien spies. Apparently, once you get inducted 
deep enough into Scientology to get told some of the special secrets :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me 
-- you can't get fooled again."
 -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 
17, 2002

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 04:10 AM 11/15/03 +, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 15 Nov 2003 at 1:22, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> Andrew Crystall wrote:
> >
> > Not you. I don't think either of the people I killfiled are that
> > regular posters anymore. (no-one else is quoting them anyway)
> >
> > I have a few on the culture list, because the individuals are
> > scientoligists and made them offensive to me off the list.
> >
> So you are also fanatically anti-religious, for some specific
> religions.
>
> I am surrounded by fanatics!!!
Anti-religion? No.
Anti-scientolgist? YES.
Scientology is a *dangerous* UFO Cult


I didn't realize UFOs were involved.  But, then, I've not made a detailed 
study of it.



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Alberto Monteiro]

Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
>> So you are also fanatically anti-religious, for some specific
>> religions.
>>
>> I am surrounded by fanatics!!!
>
> Anti-religion? No.
> Anti-scientolgist? YES.
>
> Scientology is a *dangerous* UFO Cult
>
Dangerous? In which way?

Alberto Monteiro - who would like to have all horoscopes
in the newspapers have their authors subject to being sued
when their predictions didn't come true >:-)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Explanation

[ritu]

Julia asked:

> Hm.  Wondering now:
> 
> how many religious people on list
> how many very non-religious people on list
> how many people have killfiles
> if killfiles by religious people have primarily non-religious people
> if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily religious people

I have used killfiles once, for just one person. It had nothing to do
with religion though ...seemed more to do with blackmail. 

Ritu


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan Minette wrote:

No, as I've never stated you were evil.  Did JDG ever call you evil?

Dan M.

No, but JDG does not post 20 times a day that you are evil.

How many times has he called you, personally, evil, as opposed to calling 
religion evil?

Now I'm not excusing his excesses at all, but you can call drugs evil and 
not mean drug users are evil, right?

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Jon Gabriel]

From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Explanation
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:20:14 -0600
- Original Message -
From: "Sonja van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:12 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation
> Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> > For the information of those who haven't been on the list for very
> > long, or who might not understand even though they have, the reason I
> > do not respond to JDG is that he and I have had several less than
> > civilized encounters and I decided after the last one (over a year
> > ago) that the list would be better off if we did not interact.
> >
> > This is not an entirely selfless act as the aforementioned encounters
> > tend to be unpleasant and stressfull and I'd just as soon do without
> > even if it means missing a spirited debate (which I enjoy).
> >
> Well you've got my support and I have to say that I do the same. My
> debate encounters with JDG (and strangly enough only with JDG) have not
> been exactly civilised in the past either. And for that I am truly
> sorry. But by now I've been ignoring him for a long time and it works
> for me. Let me assure you that you get used to it even if you mis out on
> a couple of debates. :o) Ever since I got the 'you are a nazi' as well
> as a couple of other even less flattering insults from him I didn't see
> any point in continued debate on his pet peeves over and over again. I
> hold to the viewpoint that we oldtimers by now know where we stand. That
> doesn't mean that I'd not be happy to discuss old enraging topics again
> with others though. ;o)
I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who are
religious are expected to regularly read posts that proclaim them evil,
mentally defective, etc. and let the insults just slide off their backs.
People who are criticized by conservatives like JDG have the right to be
indignant.
I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore their
posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
righteous indignation.
Since when?  In all seriousness, I've been equally indignant with JDG, 
William Goodall, Erik and The Fool over the last few years when I've felt 
they've been intolerant or arrogant.  When have you not known the religious 
folks on this list to rise up en masse and slap down insults from the 
atheists?  ;-)

Jon

Le Blog:  http://zarq.livejournal.com

_
Crave some Miles Davis or Grateful Dead?  Your old favorites are always 
playing on MSN Radio Plus. Trial month free! 
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Explanation


>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Explanation
>
>
> > Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > > I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who
are
> > > religious are expected to regularly read posts that proclaim them
evil,
> > > mentally defective, etc. and let the insults just slide off their
backs.
> >
> > Who expects that?  Is that in the etiquette guidelines: religious
people
> > must let insults slide off their backs.  Has someone posted "Hey,
you're
> > religious, you have to let it slide off your back!!"  I  certainly have
no
> > such expectation.  Further, neither I, nor Sonja (the only two posts in
> > this thread before yours) has ever proclaimed anyone evil (AFAIK) and I
> > would rather not be lumped in with those who do, thanks.
> >
> >
> > > People who are criticized by conservatives like JDG have the right to
be
> > > indignant.
> >
> > ???  John doesn't get indignant?  You must be kidding.
> >
> > >
> > > I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore
their
> > > posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even
the
> > > religious people expect that they should take regular insults with
good
> > > grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
> > > righteous indignation.
> >
> > This is one of the most ill considered posts I've ever seen you post,
> > Dan.  I have no idea what religion or conservatism have to do with it.
I
> > do know that JDG has referenced Hilter in _several_ posts - is there a
> > greater insult than that?  Have I ever begun a post "Look, punk..."?
> >
>
> I think it should be pointed out that what John does, does not..can
not,
> be construed as justification for anything anyone else does.
>
> I don't think Dan was in any way defending John. It appeared to me he was
> commenting on *reactions* to John. Those are 2 quite different kinds of
> statements.

That's exactly right.

> I also think Doug is acting quite correctly when he attempts to separate
> himself and Sonja from the crowd Dan was pointing out. I would certainly
do
> the same. But I am certain that Doug and Sonja were not the targets of
Dan's
> post.

Certainly not.  I've never had any real trouble with their posting styles.
My post was more on the order of musing about the asymmetry than
complaining.  I even expect me to just accept the accusations of evil to
slide off.

I think part of it is that I don't take the Fool's posts all that
seriously.  In many ways, I think Doug takes JDG's posts seriously.  I have
no problem with him killfiling JDG.  As I said, that's a reasonable
reaction to a poster that upsets you.  The Fool's posts don't really upset
me, and I was thinking of why.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: Explanation


> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who
are
> > religious are expected to regularly read posts that proclaim them evil,
> > mentally defective, etc. and let the insults just slide off their
backs.
>
> Who expects that?  Is that in the etiquette guidelines: religious people
> must let insults slide off their backs.  Has someone posted "Hey, you're
> religious, you have to let it slide off your back!!"  I  certainly have
no
> such expectation.  Further, neither I, nor Sonja (the only two posts in
> this thread before yours) has ever proclaimed anyone evil (AFAIK) and I
> would rather not be lumped in with those who do, thanks.
>
>
> > People who are criticized by conservatives like JDG have the right to
be
> > indignant.
>
> ???  John doesn't get indignant?  You must be kidding.
>
> >
> > I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore
their
> > posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
> > religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
> > grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
> > righteous indignation.


> This is one of the most ill considered posts I've ever seen you post,
> Dan.  I have no idea what religion or conservatism have to do with it.

The Fool has called me evil hundreds of times.  Its no big deal.  If JDG
called you evil, there'd be a problem.



> I  do know that JDG has referenced Hilter in _several_ posts - is there a
> greater insult than that?

If he had referenced Hitler in a debate on abortion, then you'd have
something.  Referencing it in a discussion of anti-Semitism is in context.
Did John compare you to Hitler?  Or did John compare ideas that are part of
a long and shameful tradition of anti-Semitism to Hitler.

IIRC, I thought it was a bit of an overstatement at the time. The
anti-Semitism of pogums is not as bad as Hitlers; just as the anti-Semitism
of boys who called a friend of mine "Christ Killer" was not as bad as the
anti-Semitism of pogums.  But, they are all part of a pattern.


>Have I ever begun a post "Look, punk..."?

No, as I've never stated you were evil.  Did JDG ever call you evil?

Dan M.

No, but JDG does not post 20 times a day that you are evil.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Andrew Crystall]

On 15 Nov 2003 at 1:22, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

> Andrew Crystall wrote:
> >
> > Not you. I don't think either of the people I killfiled are that
> > regular posters anymore. (no-one else is quoting them anyway)
> >
> > I have a few on the culture list, because the individuals are
> > scientoligists and made them offensive to me off the list.
> >
> So you are also fanatically anti-religious, for some specific
> religions.
> 
> I am surrounded by fanatics!!!

Anti-religion? No.
Anti-scientolgist? YES.

Scientology is a *dangerous* UFO Cult

Andy
Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: Explanation


> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who are
> > religious are expected to regularly read posts that proclaim them evil,
> > mentally defective, etc. and let the insults just slide off their backs.
>
> Who expects that?  Is that in the etiquette guidelines: religious people
> must let insults slide off their backs.  Has someone posted "Hey, you're
> religious, you have to let it slide off your back!!"  I  certainly have no
> such expectation.  Further, neither I, nor Sonja (the only two posts in
> this thread before yours) has ever proclaimed anyone evil (AFAIK) and I
> would rather not be lumped in with those who do, thanks.
>
>
> > People who are criticized by conservatives like JDG have the right to be
> > indignant.
>
> ???  John doesn't get indignant?  You must be kidding.
>
> >
> > I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore their
> > posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
> > religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
> > grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
> > righteous indignation.
>
> This is one of the most ill considered posts I've ever seen you post,
> Dan.  I have no idea what religion or conservatism have to do with it.  I
> do know that JDG has referenced Hilter in _several_ posts - is there a
> greater insult than that?  Have I ever begun a post "Look, punk..."?
>

I think it should be pointed out that what John does, does not..can not,
be construed as justification for anything anyone else does.

I don't think Dan was in any way defending John. It appeared to me he was
commenting on *reactions* to John. Those are 2 quite different kinds of
statements.

I also think Doug is acting quite correctly when he attempts to separate
himself and Sonja from the crowd Dan was pointing out. I would certainly do
the same. But I am certain that Doug and Sonja were not the targets of Dan's
post.

xponent
Not At All Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Julia Thompson]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> At 09:33 PM 11/14/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> 
> 
> >On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Michael Harney wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > > Julia
> > > >
> > > > doesn't use killfiles, certainly not on mailing lists
> > >
> > > I would definately not killfile anyone on a list that I was moderating,
> > > that much is certain, but if someone is going far enough to get on my
> > > killfile, they probably won't stay long on a list that I am moderating
> > > (someone has to go pretty far to gain that distinction).
> >
> >I don't killfile.  I skim or skip posts by certain individuals on other
> >lists sometimes, but I figure I'd rather have an idea as to what's going
> >on if a flamewar erupts, to have an idea at the outset as to who, if
> >anyone, is being a goober.
> 
> 
> 
> Or if there is enough gooberness to go around . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Peas, Peas, Peas, Peas Maru

Peas stop, Ronn!.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Julia Thompson]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Doug Pensinger wrote:

> Have I ever begun a post "Look, punk..."?

No, and you've never done the (highly irritating, IMO) thing of saying 
"Bzzt, thank you for playing" or something similar, either.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:33 PM 11/14/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:


On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Michael Harney wrote:

>
> From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Julia
> >
> > doesn't use killfiles, certainly not on mailing lists
>
> I would definately not killfile anyone on a list that I was moderating,
> that much is certain, but if someone is going far enough to get on my
> killfile, they probably won't stay long on a list that I am moderating
> (someone has to go pretty far to gain that distinction).
I don't killfile.  I skim or skip posts by certain individuals on other
lists sometimes, but I figure I'd rather have an idea as to what's going
on if a flamewar erupts, to have an idea at the outset as to who, if
anyone, is being a goober.


Or if there is enough gooberness to go around . . .



Peas, Peas, Peas, Peas Maru



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Julia Thompson]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Michael Harney wrote:

> 
> From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > Julia
> >
> > doesn't use killfiles, certainly not on mailing lists
> 
> I would definately not killfile anyone on a list that I was moderating,
> that much is certain, but if someone is going far enough to get on my
> killfile, they probably won't stay long on a list that I am moderating
> (someone has to go pretty far to gain that distinction).

I don't killfile.  I skim or skip posts by certain individuals on other 
lists sometimes, but I figure I'd rather have an idea as to what's going 
on if a flamewar erupts, to have an idea at the outset as to who, if 
anyone, is being a goober.  Also, the people who annoy me occasionally 
come up with some brilliant amusement.  The person who has done the most 
to annoy me who is on a mailing list I'm on (but he didn't annoy me via 
the 'net) has also given me a few good belly-busting laughs in listmail.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation


>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Sonja van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Explanation
>
>
> > Doug Pensinger wrote:
> >
> > > For the information of those who haven't been on the list for very
> > > long, or who might not understand even though they have, the reason I
> > > do not respond to JDG is that he and I have had several less than
> > > civilized encounters and I decided after the last one (over a year
> > > ago) that the list would be better off if we did not interact.
> > >
> > > This is not an entirely selfless act as the aforementioned encounters
> > > tend to be unpleasant and stressfull and I'd just as soon do without
> > > even if it means missing a spirited debate (which I enjoy).
> > >
> > Well you've got my support and I have to say that I do the same. My
> > debate encounters with JDG (and strangly enough only with JDG) have not
> > been exactly civilised in the past either. And for that I am truly
> > sorry. But by now I've been ignoring him for a long time and it works
> > for me. Let me assure you that you get used to it even if you mis out on
> > a couple of debates. :o) Ever since I got the 'you are a nazi' as well
> > as a couple of other even less flattering insults from him I didn't see
> > any point in continued debate on his pet peeves over and over again. I
> > hold to the viewpoint that we oldtimers by now know where we stand. That
> > doesn't mean that I'd not be happy to discuss old enraging topics again
> > with others though. ;o)
>
> I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who are
> religious are expected to regularly read posts that proclaim them evil,
> mentally defective, etc. and let the insults just slide off their backs.
> People who are criticized by conservatives like JDG have the right to be
> indignant.
>
> I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore their
> posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
> religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
> grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
> righteous indignation.
>

Is this the new Hypocrisy 2.0?

xponent
Not In The Market Hopefully Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan Minette wrote:

I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who are
religious are expected to regularly read posts that proclaim them evil,
mentally defective, etc. and let the insults just slide off their backs.
Who expects that?  Is that in the etiquette guidelines: religious people 
must let insults slide off their backs.  Has someone posted "Hey, you're 
religious, you have to let it slide off your back!!"  I  certainly have no 
such expectation.  Further, neither I, nor Sonja (the only two posts in 
this thread before yours) has ever proclaimed anyone evil (AFAIK) and I 
would rather not be lumped in with those who do, thanks.


People who are criticized by conservatives like JDG have the right to be
indignant.
???  John doesn't get indignant?  You must be kidding.

I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore their
posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
righteous indignation.
This is one of the most ill considered posts I've ever seen you post, 
Dan.  I have no idea what religion or conservatism have to do with it.  I 
do know that JDG has referenced Hilter in _several_ posts - is there a 
greater insult than that?  Have I ever begun a post "Look, punk..."?

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Deborah Harrell]

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >[I wrote:]
 
> > well, I *do*
> > toss out the baseball/football posts frequently 

> :\
> No no say it isn't so. I have been engaged in these
> mostly for your entertainment


All right, OK, very well then! --  
Play ball!

Debbi
who never managed - no, *never* - to snooze in
lectures with professors known for calling on
'sleepers' by use of the above strategem...  ;}

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:31 PM 11/14/03 +, William T Goodall wrote:

On 14 Nov 2003, at 4:20 pm, Dan Minette wrote:

I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore their
posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
righteous indignation.
Perhaps it is the way he expresses himself rather than the actual content?


Are you suggesting that the way John expresses himself to those with whom 
he disagrees is more offensive to them than the stuff The Fool posts is to 
those with religious beliefs?



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 02:19 PM 11/14/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:


On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:20:14AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who
> > are
>
> Perhaps you forgot that JDG killfiled me for a while, although I may be
> out of it now, I'm not sure. Anyway, in case you forgot, I'm not
> religious.
Hm.  Wondering now:

how many religious people on list
how many very non-religious people on list
how many people have killfiles
if killfiles by religious people have primarily non-religious people
if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily religious people
Julia

doesn't use killfiles, certainly not on mailing lists


I don't have a killfile, either.

(I will let the members of the list decide where I fall along the 
"religious . . . non-religious" spectrum.)



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 11/14/2003 4:47:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> well, I *do*
> toss out the baseball/football posts frequently  :\
No no say it isn't so. I have been engaged in these mostly for your entertainment
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Alberto Monteiro]

William T Goodall wrote:
>
> I'm mildly non-religious
>
No, you are fanatically anti-religious :-P

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Alberto Monteiro]

Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> Not you. I don't think either of the people I killfiled are that
> regular posters anymore. (no-one else is quoting them anyway)
>
> I have a few on the culture list, because the individuals are
> scientoligists and made them offensive to me off the list.
>
So you are also fanatically anti-religious, for some specific
religions.

I am surrounded by fanatics!!!

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Michael Harney]

From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


>
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:20:14AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > > I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who
> > > are
> >
> > Perhaps you forgot that JDG killfiled me for a while, although I may be
> > out of it now, I'm not sure. Anyway, in case you forgot, I'm not
> > religious.
>
> Hm.  Wondering now:
>
> how many religious people on list
> how many very non-religious people on list

I'm kinda floating the boundary between religious and not... can't really
say where I fall now.  Pondering.

> how many people have killfiles

I used to have one, it got zapped when my hard-drive failed at the end of
summer, and I haven't really had a need for it again.

> if killfiles by religious people have primarily non-religious people
> if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily religious people

When I had a killfile for this list, I only had a total of 3 people in it (3
people over the life of the killfile, the most at one time was only 2).
They were not people I had ideological differences with.  Of the people I
killfiled, one was posting things I found *very* inapropriate, another was
posting things that I found *very* inflamatory (not remotely related to
religion), and the last had sent me a rather cocky-sounding message saying
that they had killfiled me and, after a while, I decided to respond in kind.
Additionally, for the first two, the killfile was simply a seperate folder
that I would still read occasionally.  Only on the last, the response to the
person who killfiled me, had I set to delete messages upon recipt.  All of
that is gone now though, as I stated before.  I really haven't had a need
for a killfile since I restored my computer.

> Julia
>
> doesn't use killfiles, certainly not on mailing lists

I would definately not killfile anyone on a list that I was moderating, that
much is certain, but if someone is going far enough to get on my killfile,
they probably won't stay long on a list that I am moderating (someone has to
go pretty far to gain that distinction).

Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Andrew Crystall]

On 14 Nov 2003 at 23:40, William T Goodall wrote:

> 
> On 14 Nov 2003, at 9:22 pm, Andrew Crystall wrote:
> 
> > On 14 Nov 2003 at 14:19, Julia Thompson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:20:14AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> >>>
>  I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list
>  who are
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps you forgot that JDG killfiled me for a while, although I
> >>> may be out of it now, I'm not sure. Anyway, in case you forgot,
> >>> I'm not religious.
> >>
> >> Hm.  Wondering now:
> >>
> >> how many religious people on list
> >> how many very non-religious people on list
> >> how many people have killfiles
> >
> > me
> 
> You have a killfile.

An absolute necessity considering some of the frothing idiots out 
there on the web. Take, for example, the Fallout Community and 
certain of the Something Awful FYAD posters (no, I don't have a SA 
account, but I've criticised SA on a public forum before...)

> >
> >> if killfiles by religious people have primarily non-religious
> >> people
> >
> > 1
> 
> And you are religious and have killfiled one non-religious poster.
> 
> >> if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily religious
> >> people
> >
> > 1
> 
> No wait! You are non-religious and have killfiled one religious
> poster.
> 
> That doesn't add up. Perhaps you meant something else?
> 
> Or perhaps this stinky head-cold has made me more confuserated than I
> thought...

Not you. I don't think either of the people I killfiled are that 
regular posters anymore. (no-one else is quoting them anyway)

I have a few on the culture list, because the individuals are 
scientoligists and made them offensive to me off the list.

Andy
Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 14 Nov 2003, at 8:19 pm, Julia Thompson wrote:



On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:20:14AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who
are
Perhaps you forgot that JDG killfiled me for a while, although I may 
be
out of it now, I'm not sure. Anyway, in case you forgot, I'm not
religious.
Hm.  Wondering now:

how many religious people on list
how many very non-religious people on list
I'm mildly non-religious

how many people have killfiles
if killfiles by religious people have primarily non-religious people
if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily religious people
And I have no killfile. I have a glance at most list-mails because of 
thread-creep, but I don't read all of certain threads, especially those 
about sport.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 14 Nov 2003, at 9:22 pm, Andrew Crystall wrote:

On 14 Nov 2003 at 14:19, Julia Thompson wrote:



On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:20:14AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list
who are
Perhaps you forgot that JDG killfiled me for a while, although I may
be out of it now, I'm not sure. Anyway, in case you forgot, I'm not
religious.
Hm.  Wondering now:

how many religious people on list
how many very non-religious people on list
how many people have killfiles
me
You have a killfile.


if killfiles by religious people have primarily non-religious people
1
And you are religious and have killfiled one non-religious poster.

if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily religious people
1
No wait! You are non-religious and have killfiled one religious poster.

That doesn't add up. Perhaps you meant something else?

Or perhaps this stinky head-cold has made me more confuserated than I 
thought...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my 
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my 
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Jon Gabriel]

From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Explanation
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:19:58 -0600 (CST)


On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:20:14AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who
> > are
>
> Perhaps you forgot that JDG killfiled me for a while, although I may be
> out of it now, I'm not sure. Anyway, in case you forgot, I'm not
> religious.
Hm.  Wondering now:

how many religious people on list
how many very non-religious people on list
how many people have killfiles
if killfiles by religious people have primarily non-religious people
if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily religious people
	Julia

doesn't use killfiles, certainly not on mailing lists
Is this a poll?  :-)  Somehow I doubt you're asking seriously, but if you 
want, I could easily set up an actual poll up at Livejournal and invite list 
members to participate anonymously. We could even arrange it so the page 
would not log participants' isp addresses.

Jon

Le Blog:  http://zarq.livejournal.com

_
Send a QuickGreet with MSN Messenger 
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_games

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Deborah Harrell]

--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

> Hm.  Wondering now:
> 
> how many religious people on list

I prefer "spiritual," but I suppose you could place me
in this category.  ;)

> how many very non-religious people on list
> how many people have killfiles

None currently (I presume this is the same as blocking
a particular sender?).

> if killfiles by religious people have primarily
> non-religious people

Of the temporarily-blocked I've had on this List, I
don't know their status.

> if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily
> religious people

Debbi
who does delete certain threads/posters unread from
time to time, but this rarely occurs except during
periods of significant personal stress -- well, I *do*
toss out the baseball/football posts frequently  :)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Andrew Crystall]

On 14 Nov 2003 at 14:19, Julia Thompson wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:20:14AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> > 
> > > I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list
> > > who are
> > 
> > Perhaps you forgot that JDG killfiled me for a while, although I may
> > be out of it now, I'm not sure. Anyway, in case you forgot, I'm not
> > religious.
> 
> Hm.  Wondering now:
> 
> how many religious people on list
> how many very non-religious people on list
> how many people have killfiles

me

> if killfiles by religious people have primarily non-religious people

1
> if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily religious people

1

> doesn't use killfiles, certainly not on mailing lists

I ONLY block their list mail. And then it's just filtered into the 
spam bin, so I occasionally read a few of their mails.

I do have one total block, but the subject is no longer on Brin-L.

Andy
Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Julia Thompson]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:20:14AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> > I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who
> > are
> 
> Perhaps you forgot that JDG killfiled me for a while, although I may be
> out of it now, I'm not sure. Anyway, in case you forgot, I'm not
> religious.

Hm.  Wondering now:

how many religious people on list
how many very non-religious people on list
how many people have killfiles
if killfiles by religious people have primarily non-religious people
if killfiles by non-religious people have primarily religious people

Julia

doesn't use killfiles, certainly not on mailing lists

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Erik Reuter]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:20:14AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

> I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who
> are

Perhaps you forgot that JDG killfiled me for a while, although I may
be out of it now, I'm not sure. Anyway, in case you forgot, I'm not
religious.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan Minette wrote:
>
> I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore their
> posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
> religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
> grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
> righteous indignation.
>
But that's logical. The number of insults a religious person
take with good grace compound in less years in the Purgatory
[or extra virgins, depending on the person's faith :-)]

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[William T Goodall]

On 14 Nov 2003, at 4:20 pm, Dan Minette wrote:

I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore 
their
posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
righteous indignation.
Perhaps it is the way he expresses himself rather than the actual 
content?

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat
grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Sonja van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 4:12 AM
Subject: Re: Explanation


> Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> > For the information of those who haven't been on the list for very
> > long, or who might not understand even though they have, the reason I
> > do not respond to JDG is that he and I have had several less than
> > civilized encounters and I decided after the last one (over a year
> > ago) that the list would be better off if we did not interact.
> >
> > This is not an entirely selfless act as the aforementioned encounters
> > tend to be unpleasant and stressfull and I'd just as soon do without
> > even if it means missing a spirited debate (which I enjoy).
> >
> Well you've got my support and I have to say that I do the same. My
> debate encounters with JDG (and strangly enough only with JDG) have not
> been exactly civilised in the past either. And for that I am truly
> sorry. But by now I've been ignoring him for a long time and it works
> for me. Let me assure you that you get used to it even if you mis out on
> a couple of debates. :o) Ever since I got the 'you are a nazi' as well
> as a couple of other even less flattering insults from him I didn't see
> any point in continued debate on his pet peeves over and over again. I
> hold to the viewpoint that we oldtimers by now know where we stand. That
> doesn't mean that I'd not be happy to discuss old enraging topics again
> with others though. ;o)

I've noticed a rather interesting asymmetry.  People on the list who are
religious are expected to regularly read posts that proclaim them evil,
mentally defective, etc. and let the insults just slide off their backs.
People who are criticized by conservatives like JDG have the right to be
indignant.

I have no trouble with anyone deciding to killfile someone, ignore their
posts, etc.  That's perfectly reasonable.  But, its funny that even the
religious people expect that they should take regular insults with good
grace, while less insulting things written by JDG are the grounds for
righteous indignation.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Explanation

[Sonja van Baardwijk]

Doug Pensinger wrote:

For the information of those who haven't been on the list for very 
long, or who might not understand even though they have, the reason I 
do not respond to JDG is that he and I have had several less than 
civilized encounters and I decided after the last one (over a year 
ago) that the list would be better off if we did not interact.

This is not an entirely selfless act as the aforementioned encounters 
tend to be unpleasant and stressfull and I'd just as soon do without 
even if it means missing a spirited debate (which I enjoy).

Well you've got my support and I have to say that I do the same. My 
debate encounters with JDG (and strangly enough only with JDG) have not 
been exactly civilised in the past either. And for that I am truly 
sorry. But by now I've been ignoring him for a long time and it works 
for me. Let me assure you that you get used to it even if you mis out on 
a couple of debates. :o) Ever since I got the 'you are a nazi' as well 
as a couple of other even less flattering insults from him I didn't see 
any point in continued debate on his pet peeves over and over again. I 
hold to the viewpoint that we oldtimers by now know where we stand. That 
doesn't mean that I'd not be happy to discuss old enraging topics again 
with others though. ;o)

Sonja :o)

GCU: Verbally untouchable ;o)
xGCU: I've learned to first stay dead calm under verbal abuse and think 
on it for a while.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Explanation

[Doug Pensinger]

For the information of those who haven't been on the list for very long, 
or who might not understand even though they have, the reason I do not 
respond to JDG is that he and I have had several less than civilized 
encounters and I decided after the last one (over a year ago) that the 
list would be better off if we did not interact.

This is not an entirely selfless act as the aforementioned encounters tend 
to be unpleasant and stressfull and I'd just as soon do without even if it 
means missing a spirited debate (which I enjoy).

--
Doug
VFP 'nuff said
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: SCOUTED: Scientific explanation why black cats are luckierthanothers

[Deborah Harrell]

--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  From New Scientist:
>
<>
> 
> Black cats may be the more fortunate felines
 
> Black cats, a symbol of bad luck in many cultures,
> may be actually be more 
> fortunate than their fairer relatives. New research
> shows that black coats 
> have evolved separately many times in different
> species of cat - indicating 
> that dark fur has a survival benefit.
> 
> Furthermore, the mutations leading to a black coat
> are in the same gene 
> family as those involved in human diseases like
> AIDS, so it may be that 
> black cats are more resistant to disease than
> others. Of the 37 species of 
> cat that exist, 11 can have black coats.
> 
> Eduardo Eizirik, an evolutionary geneticist at the
> US National Cancer 
> Institute in Maryland, says: "There are parallels
> with humans. [The gene 
> mutation system found] does have parallels with
> other systems potentially involved in disease."
> 
> But he told New Scientist that the most likely
> benefit of a black coat was 
> camouflage for hunting... 

Or hiding from your owner/feeder/grooming slave.  ;)
Zimba apparently doesn't realize that because he's a
"tuxedo**" cat instead of pure black, I can usually
spot him in the night, as he's watching me call him
and he assumes that he's "invisible"...

Currys, Shedding Blades And Combs Maru
** white cravat, spats and tail-tip => Tuxedo!  :)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

SCOUTED: Scientific explanation why black cats are luckier than others

[Ronn!Blankenship]

From New Scientist:

<>

Black cats may be the more fortunate felines

18:19 04 March 03

Shaoni Bhattacharya

Black cats, a symbol of bad luck in many cultures, may be actually be more 
fortunate than their fairer relatives. New research shows that black coats 
have evolved separately many times in different species of cat - indicating 
that dark fur has a survival benefit.

Furthermore, the mutations leading to a black coat are in the same gene 
family as those involved in human diseases like AIDS, so it may be that 
black cats are more resistant to disease than others. Of the 37 species of 
cat that exist, 11 can have black coats.

Eduardo Eizirik, an evolutionary geneticist at the US National Cancer 
Institute in Maryland, says: "There are parallels with humans. [The gene 
mutation system found] does have parallels with other systems potentially 
involved in disease."

But he told New Scientist that the most likely benefit of a black coat was 
camouflage for hunting. The study was unusual, he says, because it explored 
the molecular basis of a trait that could have an evolutionary advantage.

Melanism mapping

Eizirik, Stephen O'Brien and colleagues mapped, cloned and sequenced two 
genes associated with "melanism" - having a black coat. They identified 
changes in a gene called agouti which controls blackness in the hair of 
domestic cats.

Changes in a connected gene known as MC1R were also implicated in melanism 
in jaguars and the small South American felines, jaguarundis.

MC1R is a member of the same gene superfamily as a human gene called CCR5, 
which is pivotal in letting HIV enter a cell. CCR5 codes for a protein that 
sits in the membrane of a cell and can be used as a doorway by a variety of 
infecting viruses.

"So perhaps the selective pressure that allowed these mutations to survive 
in cats may not be camouflage. Perhaps the mutations cause resistance of 
the cats to bugs," O'Brien told Reuters.

Journal reference Current Biology (vol 13, p 448)

18:19 04 March 03

 © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.

 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l