J
Jim Ward
Guest
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:18:33 -0000, "TripleEight" <888@msn.com> wrote:
God sounds like a meme.
N
Noah Roberts
Guest
Kevin Aylward wrote:
divisable by 2 and neither is 0.
There isn't such a thing. Bits are either 1 or zero. One is not
divisable by 2 and neither is 0.
R
Rene Tschaggelar
Guest
Jim Thompson wrote:
as weighting the parameters is difficult and most of all,
it not repeatable in full.
We already are in a recession, since several years. The
proposed boom doesn't happen. At lest not here. Rather
in the eastern european states, where the wages are low.
We're going to devaluate by 20-30% too, I estimate,
over whatever timeframe.
Rene
Yes, a differential equation. One that is difficult to model
as weighting the parameters is difficult and most of all,
it not repeatable in full.
We already are in a recession, since several years. The
proposed boom doesn't happen. At lest not here. Rather
in the eastern european states, where the wages are low.
We're going to devaluate by 20-30% too, I estimate,
over whatever timeframe.
Rene
D
Don Klipstein
Guest
In article <Qt1BtGGs3+7BFwnz@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate wrote:
being robbed.
I propose that robbers proven to be posessing a deadly weapon when
committing a robbery suffer the highest sentence that is below that for a
lower degree of murderer. I think one winter of delivering pizzas by
bicycle in Yellowknife (Canada northwest territories) 55 hours per week
may be adequate.
Actually killing someone with a deadly weapon while committing a robbery
I would count as a higher grade of murder. Even if you raised the weapon
deliberately but did the actual killing accidentally or subconsciously!
My proposed sentence: Imprisonment for 20 years with bad food (but make
the food good enough to allow a turn for even worse in the case of bad
inmate behavior in prison), along with restricted visitation and a
specific denial of "conjugal visits" and of any "right" to reproduce!
----------------------
Pennsylvania law says that if someone commits a murder while committing
another felony (such as robbery, rape or kidnapping) then the murder is a
"second degree murder". There is only one sentence in PA for second
degree murder - life without parole! (Exception - when approved by
the "Governor's Board of Pardons" or "commuted" by the governor, which is
very politically incorrect nowadays and happens something like twice a
decade statewide!) Shame that some showboating "law-and-order" DAs and
AGs in PA try to make people think things are more lenient (telling
criminals that punishment is less?), and even push hard for "first degree
murder" charges when the defendant is obviously (to the extent guilty of
any crime) guilty of second degree murder!
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
I hear of enough robbers who would kill intended victims for resistingI read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <clivu0t9ea6tosdt7t01t84k4chksosp43@4ax.com>about
'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:
So it would be OK to blow away confessed killers?
Some people will confess to anything, even without the bright lights and
rubber hoses. IMHO, anyone who kills a human is insane at that time, and
does not have the same sort of 'mens rea' as a robber or other criminal.
being robbed.
I propose that robbers proven to be posessing a deadly weapon when
committing a robbery suffer the highest sentence that is below that for a
lower degree of murderer. I think one winter of delivering pizzas by
bicycle in Yellowknife (Canada northwest territories) 55 hours per week
may be adequate.
Actually killing someone with a deadly weapon while committing a robbery
I would count as a higher grade of murder. Even if you raised the weapon
deliberately but did the actual killing accidentally or subconsciously!
My proposed sentence: Imprisonment for 20 years with bad food (but make
the food good enough to allow a turn for even worse in the case of bad
inmate behavior in prison), along with restricted visitation and a
specific denial of "conjugal visits" and of any "right" to reproduce!
----------------------
Pennsylvania law says that if someone commits a murder while committing
another felony (such as robbery, rape or kidnapping) then the murder is a
"second degree murder". There is only one sentence in PA for second
degree murder - life without parole! (Exception - when approved by
the "Governor's Board of Pardons" or "commuted" by the governor, which is
very politically incorrect nowadays and happens something like twice a
decade statewide!) Shame that some showboating "law-and-order" DAs and
AGs in PA try to make people think things are more lenient (telling
criminals that punishment is less?), and even push hard for "first degree
murder" charges when the defendant is obviously (to the extent guilty of
any crime) guilty of second degree murder!
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
S
Spehro Pefhany
Guest
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:31:50 -0600, the renowned "Brian"
<brian@w3gate.com> wrote:
unless the equity in whatever it the mortgage is a lien against
(usually a house or condo) is less than the remaining mortgage value.
Eg. $100,000 mortgage, $5,000 in CC debt, $1,000 in savings, house
worth $200,000 => net worth of + $96,000 (equity in home of $100K).
off a few years down the road. You'll probably do better than average.
institutions see to that. They want to be able to dump illiquid stuff
like real estate or a business quickly, pay all the fees, and still
not lose money. And the gov't generally gets first dibs.
But you can have positive net worth and still go bankrupt- just
because you have assets worth more than liabilities doesn't mean you
have enough income to service the short term payments.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
<brian@w3gate.com> wrote:
A $100,000 mortgage and no savings does NOT mean negative net worth
unless the equity in whatever it the mortgage is a lien against
(usually a house or condo) is less than the remaining mortgage value.
Eg. $100,000 mortgage, $5,000 in CC debt, $1,000 in savings, house
worth $200,000 => net worth of + $96,000 (equity in home of $100K).
Yes, take heart. Statistically, men in your situation are much better
off a few years down the road. You'll probably do better than average.
Or little, but they don't generally owe. If nothing else, the lending
institutions see to that. They want to be able to dump illiquid stuff
like real estate or a business quickly, pay all the fees, and still
not lose money. And the gov't generally gets first dibs.
But you can have positive net worth and still go bankrupt- just
because you have assets worth more than liabilities doesn't mean you
have enough income to service the short term payments.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
R
Rhyanon
Guest
"James Knott" <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:LsidnZUlfqI64WzcRVn-qg@rogers.com...
news:LsidnZUlfqI64WzcRVn-qg@rogers.com...
Sensible and efficient. Saves on oxygen and whatnot.
J
John Fields
Guest
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:15:50 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com>
wrote:
Unhappy she is
because there is no way out
unless she's alone.
--
John Fields
wrote:
---
Unhappy she is
because there is no way out
unless she's alone.
--
John Fields
J
John Fields
Guest
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:17:43 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com>
wrote:
Disagree with me,
you die. Disagree with you,
I die. We're all dead.
--
John Fields
wrote:
---
Disagree with me,
you die. Disagree with you,
I die. We're all dead.
--
John Fields
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
John Larkin wrote:
you call a "zinger":
Published on Friday, January 21, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
The Rhetoric of Bush's Inaugural Address versus the Reality of Bush Policy
by Stephen Zunes
President Bushs second inaugural address has received widespread praise
for its recognition of the imperative of advancing human freedom
worldwide, not just for its own sake, but for Americas own national
interest.
Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that the United States has long
been the number one military, diplomatic, and economic backer of the
worlds most repressive regimes, a pattern that has only been
strengthened under the Bush administration.
Correctly recognizing the roots of terrorism, President Bush noted that
as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny
prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder violence will
gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended
borders, and raise a mortal threat. For much of the second half of his
first term, he has emphasized that as a necessary means of curbing the
threat of terrorism the United States much push for reform and
democratization of the autocratic governments of Afghanistan, Iraq,
Syria, Iran, Libya, and the Palestine Authority.
It is important to note, however, that none of the 9/11 hijackers came
from those countries. Instead, they came from U.S.-backed dictatorships
like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, which continue
to receive billions of dollars worth of U.S. military equipment
annually. Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Uzbekistan, Pakistan,
Azerbaijan, Tunisia and Morocco are also among the autocratic regimes in
the Islamic world which continue to receive unconditional support from
the United States.
A look at the six family dictatorships of the Persian Gulf region
propped up by American arms and advisors underscores the irony that the
nation founded in one of the first republican revolutions against
monarchial rule is now the primary supporter of the worlds few
remaining absolute monarchies.
It is presumably no coincidence that the only autocratic regimes toward
which the Bush administration has pressed for reform have been those
which have traditionally opposed American hegemonic goals in the region.
In addition, while Israel serves as an exemplary democracy for its
Jewish citizens, the right-wing government of Ariel Sharon has engaged
in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations in its
occupied Palestinian territories, practices made possible in large part
through billions of dollars worth of unconditional military and economic
assistance sent annually courtesy of the American taxpayer.
If U.S. policy is indeed so contrary to the promotion of freedom and
liberty, why has this become such a focal point of the Bush
administration at the start of its second term?
Perhaps it is a means of diverting attention from the administrations
disastrous policies in Iraq. Though claims that Saddam Hussein still
possessed weapons of mass destruction and had operational links with
Al-Qaeda have been proven false, no one can deny the repressive nature
of his regime or the Iraqi peoples right to live freely. Unfortunately,
American forces have been responsible for far more civilian in the
nearly two years since the U.S. occupation began than during the final
two years of Saddams regime.
It may also be a means of silencing opposition. If, for example, the
American public can actually be made to believe that the primary purpose
of U.S. foreign policy under President Bush is to promote democracy,
critics of Bush administration policy can therefore be depicted as not
supporting democracy. Indeed, in the only reference President Bush made
to critics of his policies in his inaugural address, he blithely
dismissed them as those who have questioned the global appeal of liberty.
President Bush promised that All who live in tyranny and hopelessness
can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse
your oppressors. If this is actually the case, President Bush must
immediately make it clear to all governments that oppress their own
people or those under their military occupation: unless and until you
respect human rights, including the rights of people to choose their own
government, the United States will immediately cease all economic and
security assistance, withdraw American advisors to your police and
military, block all transfers of American armaments and other implements
of repression, and encourage other countries to do the same.
Unfortunately, there are currently no signs that President Bush is
prepared to do this or that either party in Congress is willing to
pressure him to do so.
Unless or until that time comes, President Bushs noble words at his
inauguration can only be seen as self-serving hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace &
Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as
Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project and is the
author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism
(Common Courage Press, 2003)
Here is a more scholarly critique of that pile evangelical horse manure
you call a "zinger":
Published on Friday, January 21, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
The Rhetoric of Bush's Inaugural Address versus the Reality of Bush Policy
by Stephen Zunes
President Bushs second inaugural address has received widespread praise
for its recognition of the imperative of advancing human freedom
worldwide, not just for its own sake, but for Americas own national
interest.
Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that the United States has long
been the number one military, diplomatic, and economic backer of the
worlds most repressive regimes, a pattern that has only been
strengthened under the Bush administration.
Correctly recognizing the roots of terrorism, President Bush noted that
as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny
prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder violence will
gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended
borders, and raise a mortal threat. For much of the second half of his
first term, he has emphasized that as a necessary means of curbing the
threat of terrorism the United States much push for reform and
democratization of the autocratic governments of Afghanistan, Iraq,
Syria, Iran, Libya, and the Palestine Authority.
It is important to note, however, that none of the 9/11 hijackers came
from those countries. Instead, they came from U.S.-backed dictatorships
like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, which continue
to receive billions of dollars worth of U.S. military equipment
annually. Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Uzbekistan, Pakistan,
Azerbaijan, Tunisia and Morocco are also among the autocratic regimes in
the Islamic world which continue to receive unconditional support from
the United States.
A look at the six family dictatorships of the Persian Gulf region
propped up by American arms and advisors underscores the irony that the
nation founded in one of the first republican revolutions against
monarchial rule is now the primary supporter of the worlds few
remaining absolute monarchies.
It is presumably no coincidence that the only autocratic regimes toward
which the Bush administration has pressed for reform have been those
which have traditionally opposed American hegemonic goals in the region.
In addition, while Israel serves as an exemplary democracy for its
Jewish citizens, the right-wing government of Ariel Sharon has engaged
in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations in its
occupied Palestinian territories, practices made possible in large part
through billions of dollars worth of unconditional military and economic
assistance sent annually courtesy of the American taxpayer.
If U.S. policy is indeed so contrary to the promotion of freedom and
liberty, why has this become such a focal point of the Bush
administration at the start of its second term?
Perhaps it is a means of diverting attention from the administrations
disastrous policies in Iraq. Though claims that Saddam Hussein still
possessed weapons of mass destruction and had operational links with
Al-Qaeda have been proven false, no one can deny the repressive nature
of his regime or the Iraqi peoples right to live freely. Unfortunately,
American forces have been responsible for far more civilian in the
nearly two years since the U.S. occupation began than during the final
two years of Saddams regime.
It may also be a means of silencing opposition. If, for example, the
American public can actually be made to believe that the primary purpose
of U.S. foreign policy under President Bush is to promote democracy,
critics of Bush administration policy can therefore be depicted as not
supporting democracy. Indeed, in the only reference President Bush made
to critics of his policies in his inaugural address, he blithely
dismissed them as those who have questioned the global appeal of liberty.
President Bush promised that All who live in tyranny and hopelessness
can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse
your oppressors. If this is actually the case, President Bush must
immediately make it clear to all governments that oppress their own
people or those under their military occupation: unless and until you
respect human rights, including the rights of people to choose their own
government, the United States will immediately cease all economic and
security assistance, withdraw American advisors to your police and
military, block all transfers of American armaments and other implements
of repression, and encourage other countries to do the same.
Unfortunately, there are currently no signs that President Bush is
prepared to do this or that either party in Congress is willing to
pressure him to do so.
Unless or until that time comes, President Bushs noble words at his
inauguration can only be seen as self-serving hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace &
Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as
Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project and is the
author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism
(Common Courage Press, 2003)
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
Mark Jones wrote:
most deceitful, illegal, and manipulative government sponsored
propaganda of all time that appeals to an emotional response
specifically designed to suppress intellect and reason.
Right - these people are total dupes- they have been taken in by the
most deceitful, illegal, and manipulative government sponsored
propaganda of all time that appeals to an emotional response
specifically designed to suppress intellect and reason.
K
keith
Guest
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:50:06 -0600, Rhyanon wrote:
--
Keith
Now there a rapier wit. ...from a witless top-poster.
--
Keith
J
Jim Thompson
Guest
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:40:38 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
It's just that I relate more to Jews than to Christians ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice
480)460-2350 | || E-mail Address at Website Fax
480)460-2142 | Brass Rat || http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
J
Jim Thompson
Guest
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:28:23 -0600, "Brian" <brian@w3gate.com> wrote:
Mesa went into the credit union and took out a "home improvement loan"
Went home, gave the money to his wife, and told her to get out ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
This is for real... In the late '60's an engineer friend at Motorola
Mesa went into the credit union and took out a "home improvement loan"
Went home, gave the money to his wife, and told her to get out ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice
480)460-2350 | || E-mail Address at Website Fax
480)460-2142 | Brass Rat || http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
S
Scott Stephens
Guest
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
universe and is owner of it, to not believe in and comply with the
creator's will is immorality.
religion to enable good people to do really bad things. But if you look
at other philosophies like communism and national socialism, they have
no problem committing atrocities in the name of their good intentions.
At the core, judgment is about uncorrupted perception and reason, not
about labels or language.
begging the elderly for their life savings in God's name, then spending
it on themselves - God's prophets.
They're just doing what our politicians are, promising to do good while
taking a share of the plunder.
Its just that you don't
the bibles and crosses and churches evaporated today, things would
change little.
believers can use to put prior bad conduct behind them, and trying
again. Although many Christians live in what is known as "cheap grace",
using the blanket pardon as license.
Since, from a common evangelical Christian perspective, God created the
universe and is owner of it, to not believe in and comply with the
creator's will is immorality.
The physicist Wienberg that said something to the effect that it takes
religion to enable good people to do really bad things. But if you look
at other philosophies like communism and national socialism, they have
no problem committing atrocities in the name of their good intentions.
At the core, judgment is about uncorrupted perception and reason, not
about labels or language.
Take the Swaggarts or the Bakers as an example. They have no problem
begging the elderly for their life savings in God's name, then spending
it on themselves - God's prophets.
They're just doing what our politicians are, promising to do good while
taking a share of the plunder.
Its just that you don't
Society seems to be in a lot of trouble with or without religion. If all
the bibles and crosses and churches evaporated today, things would
change little.
Jesus Christ preforms a very important function. He's an excuse
believers can use to put prior bad conduct behind them, and trying
again. Although many Christians live in what is known as "cheap grace",
using the blanket pardon as license.
S
Scott Stephens
Guest
John Woodgate wrote:
This ability to hold two entirely different 'operating systems'
compartmentalized, in cognitive scope, in world-view, in conceptual
framework.
Implications are not considered, probably because implications of
sorting through beliefs would lead to troubling conclusions about self
and others, so ignorance is bliss.
If there isn't a God, maybe we will just rot, and never see our dead
loved ones again, and we might as well lie, cheat steel and kill each other?
This ability to hold two entirely different 'operating systems'
Its been called "explanatory style". Phenomena are limited,
compartmentalized, in cognitive scope, in world-view, in conceptual
framework.
Implications are not considered, probably because implications of
sorting through beliefs would lead to troubling conclusions about self
and others, so ignorance is bliss.
If there isn't a God, maybe we will just rot, and never see our dead
loved ones again, and we might as well lie, cheat steel and kill each other?
K
keith
Guest
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:54:31 +0000, Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
--
Keith
Not revenge. Punishment. Don't do the crime if you can't take 10KV.
I didn't force him to comitt murder. ...only wish to be on the jury.
--
Keith
K
keith
Guest
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:13:28 -0500, James Knott wrote:
--
Keith
Four more years!
--
Keith
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:04:19 +0100, Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net>
wrote:
Internationalization means that, if goods and services flow freely
around the world, prices and wages will over time become more uniform.
So the US and Europe can expect some reduction of living standards and
the rest of the world can expect, by their standards, huge
improvements, leading eventually to more education and more democracy.
That doesn't sound bad to me, a little less stuff for us and a lot
better life for billions of them. Most of us have too much stuff
already.
Our historical "otherness" (ie, whiteness), our special position at
the top of the heap, will diminish. I suspect that W and Condi
understand this.
John
wrote:
Internationalization means that, if goods and services flow freely
around the world, prices and wages will over time become more uniform.
So the US and Europe can expect some reduction of living standards and
the rest of the world can expect, by their standards, huge
improvements, leading eventually to more education and more democracy.
That doesn't sound bad to me, a little less stuff for us and a lot
better life for billions of them. Most of us have too much stuff
already.
Our historical "otherness" (ie, whiteness), our special position at
the top of the heap, will diminish. I suspect that W and Condi
understand this.
John
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:19:16 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:
new big Airbus monsters, on penalty of increased duties on Thai fish.
John
wrote:
The latest scandal is Europe forcing the Thais to buy a bunch of the
new big Airbus monsters, on penalty of increased duties on Thai fish.
John
J
John Fields
Guest
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:30:59 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, and the tree it came from and the life it gave up to become a
baseball bat should be respected,
---
I'm not talking about its feelings, I'm talking about its being alive.
---
Why is a carrot's goal to achive adult carrothood any less real than
yours was to become an adult human while you were in that area you
choose to call "without consciousness"? It isn't.
---
Garbage, then. Without unconscious goals there would be no life here
as we know it since there would be no way to achieve sentience.
---
Essentially objective? If they're not totally objective, and factual,
then they're merely opinions. They also seem to be designed not so
much to ferret out truth, but to cast you in the role of the keeper of
the keys.
---
Truly, I'm not, but that doesn't mean that if I see something so
blatantly outrageous that it needs to be commented on I won't.
---
LOL! Since you can't cite an example, and you just can't bear to admit
that you can't, you skirt the issue. The point _is_, Kevin, that
consciousness can't exist without life driving it, and if you can't
refute that statement with fact, then the statement stands.
---
Fine, but for the time being, it's life that's driving that
electrochemical process that's allowing life to drive that
electrochemical process thats...
---
Sure, but so what? That hasn't been news since 1953.
---
That "evidence" however, has not been quantified and, until it is, the
mechanics of the matter will remain considerably less than "pretty
much fact".
---
To demonstrate what? That I disagree with her article.? I don't, I
just disagree with your definition of "fact" which seems to be: "Fact
is whatever Kevin Ayleward thinks is fact."
And, I do find myself at odds with your tactics. You pretend to want
to frame a scientific dialogue, when it appears that all you're really
interested in is framing your portrait.
Perhaps part of your ploy to gain exposure at any cost?-)
--
John Fields
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
---
Yes, and the tree it came from and the life it gave up to become a
baseball bat should be respected,
---
---
I'm not talking about its feelings, I'm talking about its being alive.
---
---
Why is a carrot's goal to achive adult carrothood any less real than
yours was to become an adult human while you were in that area you
choose to call "without consciousness"? It isn't.
---
---
Garbage, then. Without unconscious goals there would be no life here
as we know it since there would be no way to achieve sentience.
---
---
Essentially objective? If they're not totally objective, and factual,
then they're merely opinions. They also seem to be designed not so
much to ferret out truth, but to cast you in the role of the keeper of
the keys.
---
---
Truly, I'm not, but that doesn't mean that if I see something so
blatantly outrageous that it needs to be commented on I won't.
---
---
LOL! Since you can't cite an example, and you just can't bear to admit
that you can't, you skirt the issue. The point _is_, Kevin, that
consciousness can't exist without life driving it, and if you can't
refute that statement with fact, then the statement stands.
---
---
Fine, but for the time being, it's life that's driving that
electrochemical process that's allowing life to drive that
electrochemical process thats...
---
---
Sure, but so what? That hasn't been news since 1953.
---
---
That "evidence" however, has not been quantified and, until it is, the
mechanics of the matter will remain considerably less than "pretty
much fact".
---
---
To demonstrate what? That I disagree with her article.? I don't, I
just disagree with your definition of "fact" which seems to be: "Fact
is whatever Kevin Ayleward thinks is fact."
And, I do find myself at odds with your tactics. You pretend to want
to frame a scientific dialogue, when it appears that all you're really
interested in is framing your portrait.
Perhaps part of your ploy to gain exposure at any cost?-)
--
John Fields