War on humanity

[Terry Given]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:evjmb05j017sqaiflmf68s2k1qdsrev8e3@4ax.com...

On Mon, 31 May 2004 08:54:06 +0200, "SioL" <spam@spam.com> wrote:

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c9dugg010nv@drn.newsguy.com...
SioL wrote...

I'm a leftist, definitely. Ask Mr. Dyson.

It seems most of here are to the left of Mr. Dyson, some
only a little perhaps, but most of us a lot I imagine.

Thanks,
- Win

How is that possible? He calls himself a centrist, right?
People should be evenly distributed left and right of his persona,
given a big-enough population.

---
What he calls himself and what he is are two completely different
things.

He calls himself a centrist because he wants to believe that he's a
sensible person who's found the "middle way" and has errant camps
which disagree with him equally to his left _and_ to his right.

What he is is a self-serving, opportunistic poser who refuses to
believe that he could be wrong.

--
John Fields

Based on what I have read, I would argue that JSD is in fact a poor attempt
at AI - basically a piece of software that responds to ANY post with random
blather about some bloke called Kerry. A quick peruse of the grammatical
structure of these so-called posts provides enough evidence to back up my
assertion.

Cheers
Terry

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:45:53 +1200, "Terry Given"
<the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

Based on what I have read, I would argue that JSD is in fact a poor attempt
at AI - basically a piece of software that responds to ANY post with random
blather about some bloke called Kerry. A quick peruse of the grammatical
structure of these so-called posts provides enough evidence to back up my
assertion.

---
Dyson may be an automaton, but I think he's human.
(Well, more or less..;-)

His posts seem to be specific enough in their response to criticism to
rule out dodging the issues presented just for the purpose of
injecting the anti-Kerry dogma-blather, and examining his posting
history via Google yields some cogent, believable content WRT his
posts in the other newsgroups he frequents. Still inflammatory and
authoritarian, but believable and, surprisingly, non-political the
last time I looked.

--
John Fields

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Reg Edwards wrote:

The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

==========================

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

You are free to have that opinion.
---------------
Except that you're not, you're stuck believing what your life
experience has compelled you to believe, or what others have
brainwashed you with.

Yes. I have no options. I am obliged to say this.
--------------------

You say what you think, and you can't help it.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 31 May 2004 04:01:05 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40BAAEE2.20F@armory.com>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 30 May 2004 06:00:10 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40B9794D.7562@armory.com>:

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

He doesn't have a verifiable source for _any_ claim.
---------------
That's because I NEVER make claims that I NEED ANY argument for
OTHER than an OBVIOUS logical structural argument from the known,
and I do this IN ORDER to prevent morons like you from merely trying
to divert the argument by insipidly whining for "cites" when you
prove that you can't even THINK for yourself and that you have NO
deep reasons behind the shit in your head.

Trust me.
--------------------------
I don't need to trust a ninny who can't think logically.


When I have seen people ask your cites, it's because your
argument is NOT logical.
---------------------------
Nonsense. Alleged only by people with ulterior vicious political
and defective phiolosophical motives to lie. They KNOW they can't
out-reason me, and so they HAVE to resort to that.

One cannot outreason a printed propaganda pamphlet either.
-----------------
Of course they can, if it's wrong.


Like for exampe the Bible.
The Universe was created 5000 years ago in 5 days (IIRC, but likely not),
----------------------
Since everyone knows that mountains don't disappear or form in a few
days, that is obviously ridiculous. And since everyone knows no one
was actually around to see it, such an assertion as the bible is even
more ridiculous!! There are an enormous number of reasons why such a
book must be regarded as a fairy tale, if only because we have no good
reason to believe that any human now alive can be trusted to have
conveyed a supposed "true account" to the present without having been
tempted to screw with it along the way in order to deceive people to
acquire power and manipulate others.


and Waltz Communism is the only possible programming for billions of
neural networks each made of billons of neurons, some of these networks
having very different interests, so the WALTZ ONE FOR ALL solution always
works?
-------------------
Of course it does, they operate due to the same basic genome.
The differences between people are quite tiny, otherwise we
wouldn't even be able to communicate with each other.


Never mind, on to other things....
JP
-------------------------
People thinking they differ that much is merely erroneous, and any
such belief in such differences, other than the emotional disorders
caused by abuse and greed which must be eliminated, are simply
brainwashing.

We obviously lived in communistic tribes for 100,000 years, and
evolved to live that way for far longer. We could not have defeated
predators and the elements with the weak body we have, compared to
the predators upon us, without an evolved ethic in our real human
nature of either of extreme group cooperation, or extinction as the
only alternatives.

Don't you think diversity has something to do with it?
In the same way our diversity in 'systems' may help us survive too.
-----------------

There's no conflict whatsoever between cooperation and diversity.
Diversity of ability benefits everyone in the group. Imagining that
diversity would have to invariably threaten the group is merely
stupid western capitalist delusion.

What makes you think YOU are not in the 'emotional disorder' category?
--------------------

How long a list do you want? That's a VERY open question. Start with,
"Gee, I don't FEEL sick or hurt anywhere.", and go from there. Or
you could re-read everything I've written for 12 years.

See, the way YOU see the world, is set by the filters in your brian (in neural
nets you say 'weights' perhaps), and may well not be what the world is really
like.
------------------------------------

Who cares? That could justify any sort of twistedness.
I only care about the world *I* live in.

For this same reason you cannot be 100% objective.
---------------------------

There is no such thing, because there's no such thing as an object.

Something may happen that makes you change your views, it already happened,
you were not born with these!
JP
------------------------------

Not precisely, but they fell out awfully quick compared to my present
age.

Anyway, to get anything done in life you have to play the ball
where it looks like it lies, and kill the people you believe are
evil. It doesn't matter if you're wrong, as long as you're honest
with yourself.

You can't wait to be perfected or totally sure you know, because
that never ever happens, and if it does it will always and quite
invariably be a huge surprise. And you can't wait to fight off
robbers, either, worrying you might be wrong about them, after all,
they didn't wait to find out if THEY were right! It's a matter of
existential exigency. Shoot them through the head and make every
effort to get away with it.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

KR Williams wrote:

In article <40BAABD4.1E5D@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
Rich Grise wrote:

That's simple. If you're an authoritarian of any stripe, then if
it feels good it's bad, and if it feels bad, it's good.

Cheers!
Rich
-----------
Then I'm not an authoritarian. Another Rightist lie put to death.

In your utopia you'd have all those who don't agree with you put
to death. That is rather authoritarian, Steve.
Keith
------------------------

No, agreeing with me totally isn't required. Agreeing to live within
the bounds of their correct freedom and not offend against that of
others IS. I have innumerably more beliefs about what people should
do or be that they don't have to share at all, as long as they don't
threaten the rights I believe must be defended.

Nope, I'd only want the People's State to kill people who opposed
The Good relentlessly, and to try to deprogram the lesser threats.
And no, I don't want the job, I have better things to do.

If they can keep their shit to themselves I'd want the People
to leave them alone, but we should watch them all their lives,
and put them on notice not to EVEN try this or that, on threat
of immediate death.

If they can muzzle it they can have a REALLY nice life! But if
they try to promote their assault on the rights of the rest of
us, then they should die immediately without a hesitation.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Terry Given]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:a2mnb0pfolikjtt5737sn018lvanoodcbh@4ax.com...

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:45:53 +1200, "Terry Given"
the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote:


Based on what I have read, I would argue that JSD is in fact a poor
attempt
at AI - basically a piece of software that responds to ANY post with
random
blather about some bloke called Kerry. A quick peruse of the grammatical
structure of these so-called posts provides enough evidence to back up my
assertion.

---
Dyson may be an automaton, but I think he's human.
(Well, more or less..;-)

His posts seem to be specific enough in their response to criticism to
rule out dodging the issues presented just for the purpose of
injecting the anti-Kerry dogma-blather, and examining his posting
history via Google yields some cogent, believable content WRT his
posts in the other newsgroups he frequents. Still inflammatory and
authoritarian, but believable and, surprisingly, non-political the
last time I looked.

John Fields

just me being a smart-arse

I have read some electronics posts of his, which have been quite good. I am
however amazed at his ability to turn ANYTHING non-electronic into blather
about whats-his-name. Boring, with very low information content.

Cheers
Terry

 

[YD]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 04:05:18 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:43:57 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:Fucuc.9183$oh7.5111@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
newsS0uc.14926$mm1.915@fed1read06...

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40B7F0F4.7736@armory.com...

Before the nobility enslaved them, the tribes were Leftist.
They shared as their highest aim.

Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?

He doesn't have a verifiable source for _any_ claim. I've called his
bluff, several times[0], and he either shuts up or switches to ad hominem
name-calling.

Since he included "Dummy" in his last posting ro me, it looks like he has
already surrendered.
-----------------------
Nonsense and lies, when you can't make rational sense and are losing
at argument, you demand cites and whine to divert attention from the
discussion because you can't reason logically. If you can't stay on
topic and argue from structure then you have no MIND!

-Steve

Structure needs substance to hold it up. So how about backing up your
claims? Are you aware that you sound more and more like JSD? Are you
now going to call me a rightist?
- YD.
---------------------
If you're serious:
Revive the thead before these clowns tried to demand "proof", which
anyone knows is not possible either on Usenet or with any devoted
partisans, and then present your logical arguments from structure
and THEN see if I do not either agree with you, or else I demolish
your argument with mine.

-Steve

Uuuuuhhh... riiiiight...

In Message-ID: <40B7F0F4.7736@armory.com> you wrote:

<quote>
Before the nobility enslaved them, the tribes were Leftist.
They shared as their highest aim.
</quote>

When called on it, in Message-ID: <40B964C9.3682@armory.com> you
wrote:

<quote>

Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?
---------------------

None are needed, read what I wrote and you'll know that.
And if you DON'T know from that, then you're mentally crippled!
</quote>

and

<quote>

Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?
-----------------

I don't need one, it's obvious, which is WHY you're a Dummy!
</quote>

Later on, in Message-ID: <40BAA9D6.57E0@armory.com> you state:

<quote>
None is required, it's was a logical assertion not needing proof
by any means.
</quote>

Can we assume from this that you have reached the above conclusion by
pure thought, without any real facts to back it up? Could you please
explain your reasoning, as a thought experiment it shouldn't be all
that hard to write it up.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 04:12:24 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:40:51 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

schnipperoo-DAH!

-----------------
EVERYTHING that I say works, works. Or I don't SAY!

-Steve

You say but don't show.
---------------
Not here, we're still talking ABOUT "talking".

They have forced the thread away from topic to a meta-thread about
their demand for proof which they would obviously be unwilling to
concede no matter how persuasive.

This subthread *is* about demanding your backing up your claims with
some sort of proof.

They did this to avoid the outcome in which they would obviously
lose a structral syllogistic argument.

Fuck structural syllogistic arguments, back up your claims or back
down, simple as that. You're back pedalling even faster than JSD ever
did.

Those tribes surviving by sharing, there should be enough > antropological studies floating around that you could
come up with at least one little web page.
- YD.
----------------------
You don't understand: I've been doing this on Usenet a VERY long
time, and I have discovered that Rightist partisans will NEVER
allow you to engage them in logical structural arguments, because
they have been beaten at them consistently in the past and avoid
them like the plague, and they do this by either citing phony
experts not present to be interrogated, thus shifting burden, or
by demanding proof they will never accept, no matter what, again,
dishonestly shifting their burden off on others or onto you. They
are disingenuous and dishonest, and you cannot permit them to do
that, you must either demand they respond logically, or simply
insult them to degrade them to your audience, there are no other
options.

Pretty pleeease, just one little web page from the antropological dept
of a reputable university.

-Steve

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 06:50:37 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

KR Williams wrote:

In article <c9e86k$63n$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com says...
The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

==========================

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

How can you say that!
Keith
------------------
Simple. You cannot change your mind by an effort of will without
reason, and if you change your mind due to reason, then you are
externally caused by your life experience. This means that there
is no such thing as "Free Will". You can lie about changing your
mind to try to win the argument, but we all know better. The notion
of "Free Will" is a western myth based on the desire of the RC
church to punish people for their desires, which supposedly they
should be able then to control, and cannot. It goes along with
the confessional and was used to manipulate people by pretending
they could stop having human nature and could control their own
thoughts, which is merely insipid mind-control dogma.


-Steve

Hey, I just made up my mind to ignore you. Hm, no I didn't.

- YD, just popping in to confuse the issue.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 14:37:52 +1200, "Terry Given"
<the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

just me being a smart-arse

I have read some electronics posts of his, which have been quite good. I am
however amazed at his ability to turn ANYTHING non-electronic into blather
about whats-his-name. Boring, with very low information content.

---
I agree.

In the other (non-electronics tech) groups which he frequents, he
seems to be knowledgeable about and has some interesting opinions
regarding television and video, which he earlier alluded to as being
his forté and, I believe, how he makes his living.

Around here, he pretty much seems to be a troll who doesn't know when
to give up.

--
John Fields

 

[Rich Grise]

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message

Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...

The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

You are free to have that opinion.

I have no choice in the matter.

So, who exactly is operating you?

"It has also become possible to study the living brain and researchers
can now watch the decision-making "machinery" involved in what is
commonly referred to as free will. A seminal experiment in this field
was conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s, wherein he asked subjects
to choose a random moment to flick their wrist while he watched the
associated activity in their brains. Libet found that the brain
activity leading up to the subject flicking their wrist began
approximately
one-third of a second before the subject consciously decided to move,
suggesting that the decision was actually first being made on a
subconscious level and only afterward being translated into a
"conscious decision." A related experiment performed later by Dr.
Alvaro Pascual-Leone involved asking subjects to choose at random
which of their hands to move. He found that by stimulating different
hemispheres of the brain using magnetic fields it was possible to
strongly influence which hand the subject picked. Normally right-handed
people would choose to move their right hand 60% of the time, for example,
but when the right hemisphere was stimulated they would instead choose
their left hand 80% of the time (recall that the right hemisphere of
the brain is responsible for the left side of the body, and the left
hemisphere for the right). Despite the external influence on their
decision-making, the subjects continued to report that they believed
their choice of hand had been made freely."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

Well, what you've said here is exactly in harmony with what Will really

is - the Divine Will, of which your personal Will is an aspect, is the
magnetic polarity of essence. The Will communicates through the feelings,
or magnetic emotional body, while the Spirit, or electric polarity,
communicates
throught the mind - the brain is essentially a connector. (I realized this
one while on LSD, before ever even hearing of metaphysics.) The lack of
communication between the two is basically the root cause of all the
problems
there are.

And your statistically significant results are almost prima facie evidence,
well, maybe merely a demonstration, of the way The Amazing Randi's debunking
field works. Remember, we're dealing with very subtle forces here, and these
are forces which your brain is programmed, yea verily, imprinted, to ignore.

But seeing an interaction of a physical magnetic field with a human's Will:
That doesn't mean they have no free will of their own - exactly the
opposite -
they have a will, and the proof is that it can be influenced. Therefore, it
_must_ be real. You can't influence something that doesn't exist!

This is very good news in the world of metaphysics. Very good news indeed.
(well, my little corner anyway.

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:imQuc.12763$XI4.447170@news.xtra.co.nz...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:evjmb05j017sqaiflmf68s2k1qdsrev8e3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 31 May 2004 08:54:06 +0200, "SioL" <spam@spam.com> wrote:

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c9dugg010nv@drn.newsguy.com...
SioL wrote...

I'm a leftist, definitely. Ask Mr. Dyson.

It seems most of here are to the left of Mr. Dyson, some
only a little perhaps, but most of us a lot I imagine.

Thanks,
- Win

How is that possible? He calls himself a centrist, right?
People should be evenly distributed left and right of his persona,
given a big-enough population.

---
What he calls himself and what he is are two completely different
things.

He calls himself a centrist because he wants to believe that he's a
sensible person who's found the "middle way" and has errant camps
which disagree with him equally to his left _and_ to his right.

What he is is a self-serving, opportunistic poser who refuses to
believe that he could be wrong.

--
John Fields

Based on what I have read, I would argue that JSD is in fact a poor
attempt
at AI - basically a piece of software that responds to ANY post with
random
blather about some bloke called Kerry. A quick peruse of the grammatical
structure of these so-called posts provides enough evidence to back up my
assertion.

Maybe it's a hacked "Racter."

 

[W. Steven Richards]

"YD" <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote in message
news:0hanb0tl0ec6i66cmgs79dkp69i8h7jfb0@4ax.com...

On Mon, 31 May 2004 04:05:18 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:43:57 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:Fucuc.9183$oh7.5111@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
newsS0uc.14926$mm1.915@fed1read06...

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40B7F0F4.7736@armory.com...

Before the nobility enslaved them, the tribes were Leftist.
They shared as their highest aim.

Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?

He doesn't have a verifiable source for _any_ claim. I've called
his
bluff, several times[0], and he either shuts up or switches to ad
hominem
name-calling.

Since he included "Dummy" in his last posting ro me, it looks like
he has
already surrendered.
-----------------------
Nonsense and lies, when you can't make rational sense and are losing
at argument, you demand cites and whine to divert attention from the
discussion because you can't reason logically. If you can't stay on
topic and argue from structure then you have no MIND!

-Steve

Structure needs substance to hold it up. So how about backing up your
claims? Are you aware that you sound more and more like JSD? Are you
now going to call me a rightist?
- YD.
---------------------
If you're serious:
Revive the thead before these clowns tried to demand "proof", which
anyone knows is not possible either on Usenet or with any devoted
partisans, and then present your logical arguments from structure
and THEN see if I do not either agree with you, or else I demolish
your argument with mine.

-Steve

Uuuuuhhh... riiiiight...

In Message-ID: <40B7F0F4.7736@armory.com> you wrote:

quote
Before the nobility enslaved them, the tribes were Leftist.
They shared as their highest aim.
/quote

When called on it, in Message-ID: <40B964C9.3682@armory.com> you
wrote:

quote
Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?
---------------------
None are needed, read what I wrote and you'll know that.
And if you DON'T know from that, then you're mentally crippled!
/quote

and

quote
Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?
-----------------
I don't need one, it's obvious, which is WHY you're a Dummy!
/quote

Later on, in Message-ID: <40BAA9D6.57E0@armory.com> you state:

quote
None is required, it's was a logical assertion not needing proof
by any means.
/quote

Can we assume from this that you have reached the above conclusion by
pure thought, without any real facts to back it up? Could you please
explain your reasoning, as a thought experiment it shouldn't be all
that hard to write it up.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

You're a Lying, Scheming, Scum-Sucking Festering Pustule on the
Ass of a diseased camel! You're not worth the paper you're printed on!
You disgust me! You disgust Lice! You disgust Sludge!

And you're a brain-damaged, stupid, stupid idiot!

QED, it's so because I said so, nyaah nyaah.
W. Steven Richards

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 04:05:18 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

If you're serious:
Revive the thead before these clowns tried to demand "proof", which
anyone knows is not possible either on Usenet or with any devoted
partisans, and then present your logical arguments from structure
and THEN see if I do not either agree with you, or else I demolish
your argument with mine.
-Steve

Uuuuuhhh... riiiiight...
------------------------

[circular quotes of isolated posts of mine with no relevance]

Can we assume from this that you have reached the above conclusion by
pure thought, without any real facts to back it up?
-----------------------------------

The "facts" from which all my gedanken experiments are formed are
never more than the simplest abd most agreed-upon obvious truths
of common knowledge shared by everyone in this culture. For them
to be other than things everyone agrees on would invalidate the gedanken
process. But I find, those who don't like my conclusions
will go back and try to pretend that they can't trust these "facts"
and that they never agreed to, which is merely their ruse. Like
the previous example of someone questioning that early humans were
tribal, which any paleoanthropologist would say was an absolutely
absurd posture!

And if I say that means they were communistic, well, you can find
that very description of the meaning of the word tribal in every
first coursebook in Anthropology on every shelf in the nation.
Pretending at the end of my argument that you don't accept the
premise is a day late and a dollar short!

Could you please
explain your reasoning, as a thought experiment it shouldn't be all
that hard to write it up.
- YD.
----------------

Specify what you want explained, I'll explain it, and if you disagree
you will have to make and defend your point regarding my thought
experiment logically. We will go back and forth that way till it
is agreeable, but resist the temptation to break off the process
without agreement, nor be disingenuous with unrelated strivings.

I assure you it can be done, it IS done all the time by professionals
doing peer-review of reasonableness, I have done it a lot, and it is
more rewarding and more fruitful than quoting people of questionable
motives who are also not present who cannot be questioned anyway,
which is really nothing more than a dodge.

You see, finally, when people believe in something, it never comes
down to how many cites or quotes there are supporting it, but to
whether it makes sense to THEM in terms of common and simple truths
and how reasonable and logical it is in their light. When people
believe in something and fight and die for it, it is never a matter
of experts, because the people who finally certify ALL expertise,
and the people who award doctorates and MDs and PhDs, are finally
always, nobody other than you and me!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 04:12:24 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

You say but don't show.
---------------
Not here, we're still talking ABOUT "talking".

They have forced the thread away from topic to a meta-thread about
their demand for proof which they would obviously be unwilling to
concede no matter how persuasive.

This subthread *is* about demanding your backing up your claims with
some sort of proof.
-----------------------------

There isn't any such thing. There are no such things as proof, because
proof is always TO SOMEONE, and their acceptance of it is required,
and they may wish to disingenuously deny that, however reasonable
it is.

They did this to avoid the outcome in which they would obviously
lose a structral syllogistic argument.

Fuck structural syllogistic arguments, back up your claims or back
down, simple as that.
--------------

Nope, you're merely lying and posturing wildly!

You're back pedalling even faster than JSD ever did.
----------------------

No, YOU are. There is no such thing as "proof" and I told you why
above. All you are is posturing disingenuously for effect.

Those tribes surviving by sharing, there should be enough > antropological studies floating around that you could
come up with at least one little web page.
- YD.
----------------------
You don't understand: I've been doing this on Usenet a VERY long
time, and I have discovered that Rightist partisans will NEVER
allow you to engage them in logical structural arguments, because
they have been beaten at them consistently in the past and avoid
them like the plague, and they do this by either citing phony
experts not present to be interrogated, thus shifting burden, or
by demanding proof they will never accept, no matter what, again,
dishonestly shifting their burden off on others or onto you. They
are disingenuous and dishonest, and you cannot permit them to do
that, you must either demand they respond logically, or simply
insult them to degrade them to your audience, there are no other
options.

Pretty pleeease, just one little web page from the antropological dept
of a reputable university.
--------------------

No, because univerisities do NOT peer-review their staff websites.

You see, "websites" is NOT where reputability comes into science.

Why do you always imagine you can't think for yourself and need
"X-spurts" to do it for you? They're just other clowns like you!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 06:50:37 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

KR Williams wrote:

In article <c9e86k$63n$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com says...
The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

==========================

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

How can you say that!
Keith
------------------
Simple. You cannot change your mind by an effort of will without
reason, and if you change your mind due to reason, then you are
externally caused by your life experience. This means that there
is no such thing as "Free Will". You can lie about changing your
mind to try to win the argument, but we all know better. The notion
of "Free Will" is a western myth based on the desire of the RC
church to punish people for their desires, which supposedly they
should be able then to control, and cannot. It goes along with
the confessional and was used to manipulate people by pretending
they could stop having human nature and could control their own
thoughts, which is merely insipid mind-control dogma.


-Steve

Hey, I just made up my mind to ignore you. Hm, no I didn't.

- YD, just popping in to confuse the issue.
----------------------------

We can tell your motives now anyway. Don't you feel stupid?

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

W. Steven Richards wrote:

"YD" <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote in message
news:0hanb0tl0ec6i66cmgs79dkp69i8h7jfb0@4ax.com...
On Mon, 31 May 2004 04:05:18 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:43:57 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:Fucuc.9183$oh7.5111@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
newsS0uc.14926$mm1.915@fed1read06...

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40B7F0F4.7736@armory.com...

Before the nobility enslaved them, the tribes were Leftist.
They shared as their highest aim.

Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?

He doesn't have a verifiable source for _any_ claim. I've called
his
bluff, several times[0], and he either shuts up or switches to ad
hominem
name-calling.

Since he included "Dummy" in his last posting ro me, it looks like
he has
already surrendered.
-----------------------
Nonsense and lies, when you can't make rational sense and are losing
at argument, you demand cites and whine to divert attention from the
discussion because you can't reason logically. If you can't stay on
topic and argue from structure then you have no MIND!

-Steve

Structure needs substance to hold it up. So how about backing up your
claims? Are you aware that you sound more and more like JSD? Are you
now going to call me a rightist?
- YD.
---------------------
If you're serious:
Revive the thead before these clowns tried to demand "proof", which
anyone knows is not possible either on Usenet or with any devoted
partisans, and then present your logical arguments from structure
and THEN see if I do not either agree with you, or else I demolish
your argument with mine.

-Steve

Uuuuuhhh... riiiiight...

In Message-ID: <40B7F0F4.7736@armory.com> you wrote:

quote
Before the nobility enslaved them, the tribes were Leftist.
They shared as their highest aim.
/quote

When called on it, in Message-ID: <40B964C9.3682@armory.com> you
wrote:

quote
Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?
---------------------
None are needed, read what I wrote and you'll know that.
And if you DON'T know from that, then you're mentally crippled!
/quote

and

quote
Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?
-----------------
I don't need one, it's obvious, which is WHY you're a Dummy!
/quote

Later on, in Message-ID: <40BAA9D6.57E0@armory.com> you state:

quote
None is required, it's was a logical assertion not needing proof
by any means.
/quote

Can we assume from this that you have reached the above conclusion by
pure thought, without any real facts to back it up? Could you please
explain your reasoning, as a thought experiment it shouldn't be all
that hard to write it up.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

You're a Lying, Scheming, Scum-Sucking Festering Pustule on the
Ass of a diseased camel! You're not worth the paper you're printed on!
You disgust me! You disgust Lice! You disgust Sludge!

And you're a brain-damaged, stupid, stupid idiot!

QED, it's so because I said so, nyaah nyaah.
W. Steven Richards
-----------------

Liar.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Richard Henry]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BC1EAE.3874@armory.com...

The "facts" from which all my gedanken experiments are formed are
never more than the simplest abd most agreed-upon obvious truths
of common knowledge shared by everyone in this culture. For them
to be other than things everyone agrees on would invalidate the gedanken
process. But I find, those who don't like my conclusions
will go back and try to pretend that they can't trust these "facts"
and that they never agreed to, which is merely their ruse. Like
the previous example of someone questioning that early humans were
tribal, which any paleoanthropologist would say was an absolutely
absurd posture!

And if I say that means they were communistic, well, you can find
that very description of the meaning of the word tribal in every
first coursebook in Anthropology on every shelf in the nation.
Pretending at the end of my argument that you don't accept the
premise is a day late and a dollar short!

Can you cite one (just one) "first coursebook on Anthropology" that contains
"that very description"?

 

[Richard Henry]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BC2128.7926@armory.com...
-

There isn't any such thing. There are no such things as proof, because
proof is always TO SOMEONE, and their acceptance of it is required,
and they may wish to disingenuously deny that, however reasonable
it is.

Nope, you're merely lying and posturing wildly!

No, YOU are. There is no such thing as "proof" and I told you why
above. All you are is posturing disingenuously for effect.

No, because univerisities do NOT peer-review their staff websites.

You see, "websites" is NOT where reputability comes into science.

Why do you always imagine you can't think for yourself and need
"X-spurts" to do it for you? They're just other clowns like you!!

Pathetic.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BC1EAE.3874@armory.com...

The "facts" from which all my gedanken experiments are formed are
never more than the simplest abd most agreed-upon obvious truths
of common knowledge shared by everyone in this culture. For them
to be other than things everyone agrees on would invalidate the gedanken
process. But I find, those who don't like my conclusions
will go back and try to pretend that they can't trust these "facts"
and that they never agreed to, which is merely their ruse. Like
the previous example of someone questioning that early humans were
tribal, which any paleoanthropologist would say was an absolutely
absurd posture!

And if I say that means they were communistic, well, you can find
that very description of the meaning of the word tribal in every
first coursebook in Anthropology on every shelf in the nation.
Pretending at the end of my argument that you don't accept the
premise is a day late and a dollar short!

Can you cite one (just one) "first coursebook on Anthropology" that contains
"that very description"?
----------------------------

Having read several, I won't dignify your whining. I don't do cites
on Usenet, or anywhere, for that matter, because they toady to
the pretense of a notion of expert authority that is anti-science.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public