Driver to drive?

[Rhyanon]

Oh no, not like your career at all, flyboi. But that explains a lot about
all this impotent frustration of yours.

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:tdhiv05ruogf24ffqr1v3ltksq3frr427m@4ax.com...

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:02:26 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:

I am LEAGUES above you, old shite.

---
Like a buzzard flying around at the end of a long tether?

--
John Fields

 

[Rhyanon]

Aw, this, from someone who can't tell a bubble from an inclusion, how
amusing.


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:80hiv09hli1jlt2hqtgm9a2rulh5mb07dq@4ax.com...

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:18:15 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:

Naw; I pop these lil gems off with hardly any effort.

---
Merely cut glass, and it shows.
---

I credit fucktards such as yerself for making it that much easier,
providing so much fodder for merriment -- mine, of course.

---
Well I've got to keep it simple, anything much above what a cockroack
could comprehend and you'd be flummoxed. And I _do_ enjoy watching
you struggling, vainly trying to get yourself off the hook.



--
John Fields

 

[Tom Kupp]

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Don't forget to add offset current
cancellation resistors of 330K to the (+) inputs...

Would these be in series with the (+) inputs?

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Kupp wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Don't forget to add offset current
cancellation resistors of 330K to the (+) inputs...


Would these be in series with the (+) inputs?

yes

 

Bradley1234 wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1106827969.254835.64860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


The Republicans weren't content to rely on religion to mobilise
their
voters/suckers, but had to invoke non-existent weapons of mass
destruction as well.

-----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


The non existent wmd that killed millions of Kurds and Iranians?

Once Saddam had destroyed them - around 1994 - they no longer existed,
and didn't represent a justification for the immediate invasion of
Irak.

Or the wmd that was found and verified in Iraq in 2002?

Reference? IIRR your guys found something vaguely suspicious, but
couldn't persuade anybody that it was worth a row of beans.

Or the VX nerve gas cannisters found in Iraq?

Someone found a few old nerve gas shells - general opinion was that
they had been overloked, rather than hidden.

or the barrels washed into the ground that got into a river
in Iraq and tens of thousands of cattle and wild animals died from
symptoms
of VX or anthrax? That report that the democrats didnt want America
to hear
about?

Reference? The rest of the world didn't get to hear about it either.

Or the fact the UN security council even France/Germany said Iraq has
wmd

once upon a time ....

While the stupid peace protesters were whining and supporting
terrorists,
Iraq sent convoys of trucks into Syria, and Syria was found with wmd
months
later, again the liberal left refused to let that be known, keeping
the
loyal, ignorant left in the dark.

Another tale invented for the benefit of the stupid gullible right.

The whole thing about NO wmd? It was started by the humiliated,
discredited
liar and former weapons inspector Scott Ridder, who became a Saddam
loyalist
and gave up his US citizenship. He started the lie of no wmd in
Iraq,
despite weapons scientists who defected from Iraq and proved there
were.

And told a receptive audience of of US neocons exactly what the neocons
wanted to hear. Pity that your inspectors looking for real evidence
have given up and gone home empty-handed. It is difficult to understand
why you re-elected such a gullible bunch of nitwits - but I suppose
that is what representative democracy is all about.

But the DNC and the left jumped on the Ridder theme, every day on the
news
they would say no wmd. Even Clinton said there was enough wmd that
he
launched a military attack to protect the USA

Based on the truly crap intelligence that claimed that there might be -
they were wrong, and disinterested observers said so at the time.
Clinton was in no position to quiz the experts.

So the no wmd slogan? Its a traitorous, pro-terrorist mantra repeated
by the
ignorant.

Pity it happens to be true, isn't it.
-----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <10vjo8568v5l713@corp.supernews.com>,
Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:
How about getting it gold plated?

Must resist temptation to -- oh to hell with it:

Why would you want to gold plate paint?

'Cause gold plating things is good!


But seriously, plating an aluminum case is a fair option. Nickel plating
looks quite good and resists finger prints and scuff marks well.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Willem]

John wrote:
) On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:15:14 +0000 (UTC), Willem <willem@stack.nl>
) wrote:
)
)>This is a flawed argument. The universe did not pop into existence.
)>It is only perceived that way from inside the universe itself.
)
) ---
) If that's not the way it _really_ happened then, in your view, what
) was the mechanism which created our universe?

There is no mechanism that created the universe, for the universe was not
created. Creating, in an of itself, is a concept that requires the concept
of time. However, when we view it from inside the universe, and inside
'time', so to speak, there was a beginning before which it did not exist.
So, you could say that it popped into existence. Or you could say that it
has always existed, because 'always' means 'every instance of time up to
the present' and at the very first instance of time, the universe was
already there.

But I'll restate it for you:
If God created the universe, then who created God ?
answer: God exists outside of time so 'creating' does not apply.
My argument: But then, when viewed from outside, 'creating' does not apply
to the universe either.
Someone then said: But the universe only existed inside of time, so there
is no universe viewed from outside.
So, then I ask: If God exists outside of time, and the universe does not
exist outside of time, then to God, the universe does not exist.

Basically, I still haven't heard an argument that argues the likeliness of
a God existing that is actually logically sound.


)>Furthermore, as soon as you go outside the concept of 'time', the concept
)>of 'creating' becomes meaningless.
)
) ---
) Unless you know a trick, it's impossible for you to say what it's like
) to be not bound by time, so your concept of what unfettered
) "creating" _is_ is probably innacurate.

The trick is that 'meaningless' is a special case, where it is unneccesary
for me to know what it's like. To define the concept of 'creating'
requires the concept of 'time'. Therefore, the concept of 'creating'
cannot be used in a context where 'time' does not apply.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

In <HwTJd.241212$Z7.55206@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, on 01/26/05
at 08:59 PM, "Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> said:

It doesn't. What makes it so is that there is zero evidence for god.
There *only* reason for the concept of god, is because someone said so.

There are countless records of people who have SEEN God. I don't mean
preachers on TV begging for money. Just because you choose to disbelieve
them, doesn't mean it is not evidence.

Anyone who starts giving you any evidence is going to be ridiculed by you
and others, so why would it be of any value to try and enlighten you, and
show you some things that you obviously do not want to hear about? Most
would not cast their pearls before swine.

You have to stop saying there is no evidence, and start saying that you
just don't believe the evidence.

Show me some bloody evidence that this so called god done anything.

It was reported that He was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead. Of
course, you reject that evidence, which is the testimony of hundreds of
people, but that does not mean it is not evidence.

There, you have the bloody evidence. What more do you want? I ask for
evidence that there was ever life on Mars, and some people point to stuff
NASA is seeing, but I reject that evidence. Does that mean there is no
evidence?

Nope. The big bang has nothing to do with a god.

You absolutely, postively, for sure, and without any doubt, have NO proof
that such a statement is correct. None whatsoever.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/gaps.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html

If I send you to web sites defending the existence of God, will you go
check them all out?

15,000 hits on goggle.

Google, "the excuse for the people who cannot make up their own mind"

For every web site you can find to support your position, I can find ten
to support the position that there is credible evidence for the existence
of God. You can say you don't believe it, but it IS evidence.

Like how anyone can be so daft to not understand the relevance of:

"Hey, I can make myself invisible, but only if your back is turned to
me".

Wise up.

There are thousands of reports and histories of people who have seen God.
Just because you have not seen Him, does not make Him invisible. You are
arguing yourself right into a corner with that one

That is, based on extensive evidence for evolution and
*zero* actual evidence for an actual god.

This position has got to go.

The point is that QM strongly suggests that a god cannot be all knowing.
That is, a god that can predict everything, essentially means QM is
wrong. Considering the success of QM, this one is a tad hard to swallow.

I disagree with this logic. If there is a God, why cannot QM and God
co-exist. You keep saying the universe is random, but random only relates
to the human brain. Just because you cannot keep track of it all, does
not mean a superior being cannot. You think pretty highly of yourself....

What's you point, oh..its that "god of the gaps" thing again...

Is this you new, cool, buzzword that you read somewhere?

Nope. We have objective evidence on the effects of gravity. We have
no
evidence for a god.

Sigh..... Yes we do. You just reject it.

No, no one does. Please present god.

Read the scripture. Not only the Bible, but from other civilizations that
say the same thing. Eye witness accounts are not proof? Oh, unless you are
the eyewitness, it is not credible. :-(

We have *bishops* telling us that god did this, god says that, but
diddly squat for actual evidence of such claimed deeds. Any
"evidence"
that there is completely contradictory, www.evilbible.com.

Again with the dopey web site referalls? Who cares what some bonehead
threw up (literally) on a web page? I can show you web pages with
eyewitness accounts of the existence of God. Oh, that's right, you reject
that, but its still as valid as your idiotic evilbible.com site.

Oh dear... The Babble is the only "evidence" for god that exists.

No, not even close, but at least you almost admit that it is evidence.

 

[Kryten]

"Rich The Newsgropup Wacko" <wacko@example.com> wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.22.08.27.59.316912@example.com...

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:44:15 +0000, Kryten wrote:

So tag the thread as ignored, dunderhead.

No. Because I am looking for information relevant to (a) this thread an (b)
this newsgroup.

Geez, how many times do we have
to go over this?

I presume you've been posting on that subject.
Your philosopher alias was killfiled.

You want me to retitle the thread _for your convenience_ because you're
_looking for a job_????

Yes, that would be a sensible and courteous thing to do.

If _you_ change the subject, _you_ change the title.

Along with sticking to one alias so that when people killfile you then you
stay killfiled.

Unless of course you deliberately change aliases to thwart people who wish
to ignore you.

You're like a turd that won't flush.

Go pleasure yourself

Not in the mood right now.

You should try not being a newsgroup wanker.

nitwit.

And that's coming from a lonely crossposting irrelevant newsgroup wacko?

Don't bother replying, you're plonked again.

 

[Tom Kupp]

Cheers!
Fred Bloggs wrote:

Tom Kupp wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:

Don't forget to add offset current
cancellation resistors of 330K to the (+) inputs...


Would these be in series with the (+) inputs?

yes

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 06:40:49 GMT, "Yukio" <yano@shaw.ca> wrote:

do a google search for Focault testing !

I came across some web pages on the Hubble Telescope Mirror tests

I made my own mirror as a teenager fifty years ago

This is what happens when the Paper Pushers over-rule the Grunts that do the
actual work !! PP insisted on Gilding the lily by adding a couple of extra
lenses in an "autocollamator setup" and got it wrong somewhere along the
line ! A simple Focault Test setup would have tipped them off that
something was amiss. But hey this a Electronics Design Newsgroup, but then
again this is how I got interested in telescopes , electronics, CCD's,
Electron Microscopes, and Video.

Yukio YANO

There was plenty of evidence that something was wrong, but they
ignored it and stuck with the results of one defective test fixture.
The Hubble mirror was so bad that any competant hobbyist-level mirror
grinder would have caught it.

Read "The Hubble Wars" by Eric Chaisson. After weeks of trying to
focus the scope in space, a big meeting was called, and they figured
out what must have happened. One of the prime optical designers
excused himself, stepped into the hallway, and vomited.

John

 

In <35ub28F4r2v1hU1@individual.net>, on 01/28/05
at 08:14 AM, Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> said:

learner@juno.com wrote:

the writings being unearthed today in the middle east
are filled with journals, and writings, of people who say they were
witnesses to the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ.

Your makin' it ap.

The LDS
Church has scriptures and stories that testify to the visit of Jesus
Christ to ancient inhabitants of Central America.

I've read the Book of Mormon. Good laugh. I really like the way the
language segues seamlessly from King James to Jesse James.

Paul Burke

Hi Paul,

You came into the middle of the discussion, and aren't aware of why these
points were brought up.

Kevin declared that there was no evidence for the existence of God. I told
him, many, many times that I was not attempting to prove that God exists,
but that there is evidence, and that he can accept or reject it. He lost
the argument when he finally admitted that there was evidence that God
exists, but that he didn't believe it, and that is fine. His original
stance was that there was no evidence, but he has since been proven wrong
by his own statements.

Evidence is not required to be always truth, it is information given to
prove something, and if it is found to be unacceptable to someone, it is
well within their privilege to ignore it, or declare it to be false

What you quoted from me is not an attempt to justify any of the beliefs of
persons or organizations, but to point out the existence of the evidence,
so you won't get anywhere dissin the sources of that evidence, at least
not from me.

I don't care what you think, and it is childish and immature for someone
who believes there is a God, to try and convince one who does not believe
it.

On the other hand, it is equally small minded and stupid, and a complete
waste of everyone's time, for people who do not believe in God, to try and
convince someone who believes in God, that God does not exist. Especially
with such witty reparte as you provided.

You will have to find someone else to go to war over religion with, as
that has nothing to do with the quotes you snipped, and used to try and
incite others.

Sorry.....

 

[Noah Roberts]

Willem wrote:

Ah, so consciousness *can* arise spontaneously.
No, consciousness is caused by coffee.

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:49:15 GMT, Parse Tree
<account@domain.extension> wrote:

learner@juno.com wrote:
In <HbfKd.248458$ju.41350@news.easynews.com>, on 01/27/05
at 11:55 PM, Parse Tree <account@domain.extension> said:


Show me a *contemporary* *written* record to these alleged sightings.

Game over, little man.

You really think that the only proof of anything on this earth has to come
from a contemporary source? You reject all of history because it is not
contemporary?


I, personally, would accept a credible source.

You, personally, don't know what a credible source is. You change the
meaning of the word every time your position is challenged.

I'm not the person who thinks some guy off the street is a credible source.

---
You don't consider yourself some guy off the street?

So far, I've seen little to convince me that such _isn't_ the case,
and if you can't _prove_ otherwise, you've invalidated your argument
by hoisting youself on your own petard.

--
John Fields

 

[Noah Roberts]

Parse Tree wrote:

That doesn't even make sense. Time is an entity created by the universe,
not the other way around.

I wish I could find it now.

I get this data from an argument against the existance of God by people
in that field of study. I can't find it now...I didn't pull it out of
thin air. It was in the form of a FAQ.

According to them, scientists studying the beginning of the universe,
time and the universe became at the same time. There was no 'before'
the big bang because with the big bang came time.

If that is true...and I will grant that I don't know that it is. And we
speak of the existance of an 'out of time'. Then there is no universe
there.

And I would argue that time doesn't qualify as an 'entity'.

 

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:16:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

sound, and subsequently charge $100 for a bit of wire. The LSD steal 10%
of peoples earnings by fraudulent methods. Its that simple.

Hmm, first you are proven to be wrong on the definition of 'evidence,' and
now you come back and show us that you do not know the meaning of the word
'steal' either.

You are rapidly losing credibility as a source of intelligent
conversation.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:42:37 +0000, Anthony Fremont wrote:

Allot of people don't believe in ESP, precognition and remote viewing,
and science can't really do much to prove (or disprove) any of it. But
that doesn't stop the gov. from spending millions on trying to develop
it for military purposes.

I'm not talking about anything extrasensory here. I'm talking about
feeling what you feel.

Suppose we do an experiment. You put your hand on the table. I hit it with
a hammer.

Did you feel pain?

Prove it!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00:00 -0800, Andrew VK3BFA wrote:

Anthony Fremont wrote:
"Rich The Philosophizer" wrote
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:02:58 +0000, Anthony Fremont wrote:

I guess that puts it in the same realm as the big bang and the
first
fraction of a second afterwards. ;-) It's simply a matter of
where
you
chose to "put your faith".

Well, the thing is, faith is a trap. It's belief without evidence.


Jeeezus, you Christian nutters

Would you be so kind as to explain where you get "Christian nutters"
from "faith is a trap"?

Speaking of reacting to something that wasn't even said!

Who's the loon here?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:43:43 +0000, Anthony Fremont wrote:

"Andrew VK3BFA" <ablight@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message

"Never argue with an idiot - they drag you down to their level and
beat
you by sheer experience"

Thanks!

;^j
Rich

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:23:41 +0000, Paul Burke wrote:

Bradley1234 wrote:


How can you say it isnt true? A person has only 2 options, to say its
absolutely true, or, they dont know.

Or to say it's absolutely false.

Yes, if one chooses to be an absolute fool.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, Still Waiting for
Some Hot Babe to Ask What My Favorite Planet Is.