arachne-digest Thursday, January 23 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2031
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:12:26 -0500 From: Roger Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea Samuel W. Heywood wrote: . > I don't know. There appears to be something fundamenatally wrong with . > the jury selection process, especially for civil lawsuit trials. It . > seems that many jurors think it is OK to award the plaintiffs huge . > amounts of money just because the defendant is insured. There should be . > nothing awarded at all unless they can honestly find that the defendant . > is at fault. The ability of the defendant's insurers to pay for the . > awards should not be a factor in their decisions. Here in Arizona, at least, even mentioning the word, "insur(e)(ed)(er)" during a trial will result in a mistrial as it prejudices the jury. However, any halfway intelligent juror will realize that if a lawsuit is brought to trial, either an insurance company is involved or the defendant is independently wealthy. A lawyer who takes a case on a contingency basis will not pursue a case unless he/she feels that there is a reasonable chance of recovery. However we may wish to think of lawyers, they are not stupid. I am a structural engineer, not a lawyer. A client of mine won a lawsuit two years ago and is still trying to collect. It appears to be a case of, "OK, now you've won; try now to collect." Roger Turk Tucson, Arizona ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:23:32 -0500 From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Do you want to unsubscribe ? Welcome back Clarence!!!!! It's good to see you back and jumping in with both feet. We've missed you. On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:06:48 -0400, Clarence Verge wrote: > I have been given permission to collect the email address of all those > who want off this list and manually delete their names from a copy of > the subscriber list. > Michael will then attempt to overwrite - he says it may not be as easy > as it sounds - the existing list with the new version. > If you want off, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > from the address you wish deleted before this weekend. > Don't send your request to the list. > - Clarence Verge > - Using Arachne V1.71 because I hate Windows crap a lot more... Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:35:25 -0500 (EST) From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Still OT... opinion On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote: > REAL example: > woman's doctor doesn't do childbirth's, because the insurrance would be > unpayable. (29.000$ vs 107.000 for insurrance if she did births) > (have forgotten the name, but it was on very credible 2. german television) Yes, that's true. Many OB/GYN's have gotten out of the "childbirth business" because malpractice insurance rates in that field have skyrocketed. > There are 2 possibilities: > 1) american doctors are soooo bad, that they very often do something wrong > (very low propability) > 2) american's too often sue and want to much money 3) Just a few Americans sue and want too much money, and the insurance companies raise premiums based on a projection of trends into the future rather than on any past or present actuarial reality. (e.g., since we've had a 100% increase in malpractice suits related to childbirth in the last year, [increase from 10 to 20] we must raise premiums based on the assumption that they will continue to rise 100% each year for at least the next 5 years) > Signs point to 2) Doctors *have* been sued because the baby was born with birth defects. I can't imagine such a case would be won, but even if 2) is true and the suits are lost, it could move insurance companies to take the actions in 3). > S> I can not find it in my copy of the UN Charter. Please > S> enlighten me as to which section and paragraph of the UN > S> Charter recognizes "undeniable rights." > Indirectly in the preamble: > "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the > human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and > small" The preamble has no force of law. It's basically a "political speech" at the beginning to set the tone and explain the reasoning for the law that follows. The US Constitution also has a preamble, as does the charter for rec.crafts.glass. The preambles for all three carry the same amount of legal weight. > I (as not being a native speaker) thought that inalienable and undeniable were > roughly the same, but anyways I ment inalienable. I knew what you meant, and wasn't addressing that. :-) > PS: as for Guantanamo: > Art. 5 > "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or > degrading treatment or punishment." They are being fed three times a day, they have comfortable beds. How is that cruel or inhuman? They are not degraded. They are not being punished, but merely temporarily detained until their status can be determined, so you see, Art. 5 has nothing to do with this situation. (No, I don't actually condone that viewpoint... I'm just donning the lawyer cloak momentarily.) Language is imprecise. It is subjective. What may be funny to you may be degrading to me. No question about it, most lawyers are despicable in that they have no scruples or morals of their own. They don whatever cloak of ethics their clients hand them. In a strange way though, this is a trait that more of us could do with; the ability to see the situation through someone else's eyes; reason using someone else's premises. The difference between a lawyer and an empath is that the former usually does it for money (and/or personal glory) while the latter does it for understanding. - -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:48:44 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:12:26 -0500, Roger Turk wrote: > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > .. > I don't know. There appears to be something fundamenatally wrong with > .. > the jury selection process, especially for civil lawsuit trials. It > .. > seems that many jurors think it is OK to award the plaintiffs huge > .. > amounts of money just because the defendant is insured. There should be > .. > nothing awarded at all unless they can honestly find that the defendant > .. > is at fault. The ability of the defendant's insurers to pay for the > .. > awards should not be a factor in their decisions. > Here in Arizona, at least, even mentioning the word, "insur(e)(ed)(er)" > during a trial will result in a mistrial as it prejudices the jury. However, > any halfway intelligent juror will realize that if a lawsuit is brought to > trial, either an insurance company is involved or the defendant is > independently wealthy. A lawyer who takes a case on a contingency basis will > not pursue a case unless he/she feels that there is a reasonable chance of > recovery. However we may wish to think of lawyers, they are not stupid. > I am a structural engineer, not a lawyer. A client of mine won a lawsuit two > years ago and is still trying to collect. It appears to be a case of, "OK, > now you've won; try now to collect." Here in Virginia, if you don't pay off a judgement fast the lawyers for the plaintiff can easily place a lien on your home, even if the home is in another state, for the amount of the judgement plus interest until the judgement is paid off. Until you pay off the judgement you will have a bad credit rating and you won't be able to sell your home. This happened to me. They put a lien on a residential building lot that I own in another state. I eventually paid off the judgement even though it was most unfair because there was no way I could prevent them from collecting. Sam Heywood - -- > Roger Turk > Tucson, Arizona - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:52:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Judgement vs. Collection On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Roger Turk wrote: > I am a structural engineer, not a lawyer. A client of mine won a lawsuit two > years ago and is still trying to collect. It appears to be a case of, "OK, > now you've won; try now to collect." Absolutely. We were away (in NM, FL, and AZ, as it happens), and renting out a mobile home. We got back to find the place trashed. Court awarded $3000 in damages. Money in our pocket: $0. It should be emphasized above all else... winning a lawsuit only means you have permission to try to collect. It does not mean you actually get any money. - -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:18:05 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Language and Arachne On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: >> And IMO english has very much made it to >> an international second language. > > This situation might change after a few more decades. > The growth rate of the Spanish speaking populations > in the world is much greater than the rate seen in > populations which speak English. Soon the Spanish > speaking people will outnumber those who speak English. LANGUAGE .... China is now the country (after the USA) with the second largest total number of English speakers. The 6 official languages of the UN are: English, Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese, and Arabic English is the official language of the UN humanitarian efforts and the de facto common language of the NATO forces (partly because most Americans only know English and most [younger] Europeans know it as a second language). Given those two facts, wherever NATO goes or a major humanitarian need arises, there you will find a demand for (and an interest in) English. Within days of entering an area, the high salaries for English translators drives up the market for English speakers. Learning English becomes a major focus for everyone in all levels of society. Given the state of current world political events, I don't think that trend will diminish in the near future. and ARACHNE ... With its potential for interactive learning, easily-modified-text linked to graphics, photos, video, and audio, and the capability for local people to make their own adaptations, Arachne is a phenomenal tool for language learning. Any cultural anthropologist would affirm that: - - language is at the heart of any culture, - - language learning is necessary to understand the heart of another, - - mutual understanding is necessary to displace distrust - - and distrust eventually leads to conflict. So, a good way for Arachnids to help build a foundation for peace is to create a language-learning platform that helps people to share their own perspective and learn the perspective of others, using tools that are outside the control of any political-powers who might disagree. Hmmm. Freely sharing information. You won't find that in the M$ business plans. Sounds like a job for the Arachne radicals (with some help from our freeware DOS friends). At least, that's my plan. Bob, the dreamer. - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:48:51 -0500 From: Roger Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Judgement vs. Collection Steve Ackman wrote: . > It should be emphasized above all else... winning a . > lawsuit only means you have permission to try to collect. . > It does not mean you actually get any money. Yes, and the bigger the judgement, the greater the incentive of the loser(s) to fight the judgement. I would say that *none* of the multi, multi million dollar awards that make headlines is actually paid. Post-trial settlements are common. It may come down to the loser(s) of these big awards just paying the winner's legal and court costs plus a couple hundred thousand. The alternative is waiting for years to collect, and incurring additional court and legal expenses. (I've said before that a good lawyer can drag out a lawsuit over several lifetimes.) Even in small lawsuits, the loser has to have assets that can be attached. If the loser doesn't own property, does not have a bank account, is not employed, there is nothing that can be attached. Roger Turk Tucson, Arizona ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:29:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Fw: arachne list cancelled > I tried to subscribe to the Arachne list on Yahoo groups, but the > confirmation reply got bounced. It seems that the "To:" line is too long. > Why can't the owner of the Majordomo list just be transferred to a new owner? > Roger Turk Actually the To: line was not long enough, though it may have been too long for Compuserve. Maybe Compuserve truncates the To: line after a certain number of characters. Bug in Compuserve, and didn't you say Compuserve limited your inbox to 100 messages? I've exceeded 100 with Bluegrass Net many times, even exceeded 200. . > The attached message could not be delivered to the . > following recipients: . > To: INTERNET:com@yaho . > INTERNET:confirm-s2-61ZRTdWbKGXA6vfLLwuJ8r0h5RI-73527 . > .1356=compuserve.com@yaho See, the server has no way of knowing that the shortened ...com@yaho really is supposed to be [EMAIL PROTECTED] . I believe I've had To: lines even longer than this on list subscription confirmations, and I was successful sending the confirmation mini-message. I believe Majordomo is a software rather than hardware item, thus the Arachne list server would be in Michael's premises. Tom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:33:38 -0500 From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: International law??? On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:45:15 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: (material deleted) You keep talking about "international law" as if that was something fixed and reliable. But I don't understand. What international law? Made by whom and for whom? Where is the international legislature? Who are it's members and how were it's members elected? There is no worldwide, democratic body with the authority to make and enforce "international law". So the concept is a meaningless one at this point in our planetary evolution. Or am I missing something significant? Please, could you elucidate what you mean and explain how "international law" gets enacted and how it could get enforced? Also I do not believe that the "illegal combatants" detained at Guantanamo Bay are being treated unhumanely. They recieve adequate food, shelter and excellent medical care. They have been visited by the International Red Cross. They are allowed to practice their religion. None of them have been stood up against a wall and shot. They are seen as being extremely dangerous and are being held under the highest security. I think that's appropriate. Eventually, some of them might be released--but certainly not while any possibility exists that they might threaten the safety and security of the United States or of anyone else. You seem disposed to view the actions of the United States in the worst possible light. I think this is unfair and unrealistic. The United States is reasonably and appropriately concerned about the safety and security of it's citizens. To suggest that this concern is somehow immoral or wrong is irresponsible and absurd. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:03:18 +0100 From: Casper Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op zaterdag 18 januari 2003 07:04, schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:54:16 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard > > Menedetter) writes: > > MY problem is if America wants to force american law to worldwide > > affairs. THIS is not possible. > > I agree, Ricsi. One should not force their own ways upon others. > > It is equally true that Americans don't want others to force foreign ways > upon America. And, if a foreign force were to come and attempt to make > this happen, they would fail. This is because, as a last resort, the > American people still possess their guns. (Gee, I'm starting to sound > like Mr. Heston?) The Iraqis have guns, just like the Taliban. I'll save the anti-gun argument for later. > Or, dare I ask, what do you think the French and Dutch kids hear in their > schools about the German people. Being Dutch, 22 years old, I think I have quite a clear view about what they tell us about Germans at school. - - - They are NOT the enemy anymore, they are friends, and have been for a long time. - - - Allthough Germans started WWII, that does not make them warmongers. Hitler wasn't even german. - - - During the pre-war years, movements similar to the Nazi's (fascist/nationalist) existed in most country's, including The Netherlands, France and Italy (Mussolini was an example to Hitler). - - -Whenever the economy goes bad, people will look for a strong leader and a scapegoat. Germany's economy was completly destroyed by heavy (close to impossible) punishments for WW1. All of this boils down to: they are humans, just like the rest of us. And just like colour of skin or religion, have nothing to do with being "good" or "bad". > > Care to guess what the Serbian people say about Austrians? > > The Europe I know isn't quite so perfect. I haven't yet been to Portugal. > Perhaps they have reached the position where all prejudices have been > abolished. For the rest of the world, it's still THEM vs US (whoever them > and us happens to be). It's actually the core concept in Cultural > Anthropology. The mistake you make is thinking that "THEM vs US" is something like a football match in which you are supposed to "beat" "THEM" so "US" will be the winners. Sure, prejudices exist everywhere, but being taught how to recognize and avoid them helps. > I'm also guessing that the school system did a poor job of teaching the > American perspective. Or were you absent that day? > I might have missed a day, but most of those 3 month I was there. That is three months of History dedicated to the US. Many other classes also spend at least some time to US views, eg English. For the record, they also try to teach us about other country's/believes. Think Islam/North-Korea/Communism. > What I have failed to grasp is any reasoning that would suggest why it is > logical to argue that America should change to a European perspective, > yet illogical to argue that it is Europe who, in fact, needs to change > its perspective. > As long as you are only dealing with the US, don't change a thing. However, as soon as you start interacting with people from other parts of the world, you'll have to adapt to find a common way of interaction. - - From some other discussion: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." - - -- Casper Gielen [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - -- Linux sucks twice as fast and 10 times more reliably, and since you have the source, it's your fault. -Ca1v1n - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+LwcWIhQIPPgOSvcRAtxQAJ9KER9QfWCLyXxVdnIkiIGOUwwsqgCcCFXE L+knVdW+jIfdA4mybj/hp7U= =V7mS - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:10:15 +1000 From: "Ronald Bleckendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) Excellently put, Casper. I am a Jew who grew up in Germany just after the last war, went to school there and university. During that time I have not heard EVER a racist remark by my peers or anyone else for that matter. Come to think of it, I was naive enough to think that racism is something that happened in the past. Until I went on a holiday to the USA. It was in a small town in Louisiana where a woman I talked to in a diner spat in my face when she heard I was Jewish and had the audacity to live in Germany! I was scum as far as she was concerned. What I would like to see are UN weapons inspectors to go into the US and make sure THEY don't have any "weapons of mass destruction" lying around anywhere. Then, if they find any, maybe the rest of the world should just attack America for having them. Iraq at the present time is NO threat to America in any way. Even if they have the necessary warheads, they have no means of getting them all the way to America. For that reason alone it would be ludicrous to attack Iraq. Bush's statement that it has to be done to "restore peace in the region" is just as ludicrous, as there is no war in the region, and no peace needs to be restored. What is encouraging is that, apparently the majority of Americans are against this war. Anyway, I don't want to go on and bore everyone with my opinions... Have a good day, Dr. Ron - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Casper Gielen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:03 AM Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Op zaterdag 18 januari 2003 07:04, schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:54:16 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard > > > > Menedetter) writes: > > > MY problem is if America wants to force american law to worldwide > > > affairs. THIS is not possible. > > > > I agree, Ricsi. One should not force their own ways upon others. > > > > It is equally true that Americans don't want others to force foreign ways > > upon America. And, if a foreign force were to come and attempt to make > > this happen, they would fail. This is because, as a last resort, the > > American people still possess their guns. (Gee, I'm starting to sound > > like Mr. Heston?) > > The Iraqis have guns, just like the Taliban. > I'll save the anti-gun argument for later. > > > Or, dare I ask, what do you think the French and Dutch kids hear in their > > schools about the German people. > > Being Dutch, 22 years old, I think I have quite a clear view about what they > tell us about Germans at school. > > - - They are NOT the enemy anymore, they are friends, and have been for a long > time. > - - Allthough Germans started WWII, that does not make them warmongers. Hitler > wasn't even german. > - - During the pre-war years, movements similar to the Nazi's > (fascist/nationalist) existed in most country's, including The Netherlands, > France and Italy (Mussolini was an example to Hitler). > - -Whenever the economy goes bad, people will look for a strong leader and a > scapegoat. Germany's economy was completly destroyed by heavy (close to > impossible) punishments for WW1. > > All of this boils down to: they are humans, just like the rest of us. And just > like colour of skin or religion, have nothing to do with being "good" or > "bad". > > > > > Care to guess what the Serbian people say about Austrians? > > > > The Europe I know isn't quite so perfect. I haven't yet been to Portugal. > > Perhaps they have reached the position where all prejudices have been > > abolished. For the rest of the world, it's still THEM vs US (whoever them > > and us happens to be). It's actually the core concept in Cultural > > Anthropology. > > The mistake you make is thinking that "THEM vs US" is something like a > football match in which you are supposed to "beat" "THEM" so "US" will be the > winners. > Sure, prejudices exist everywhere, but being taught how to recognize and avoid > them helps. > > > I'm also guessing that the school system did a poor job of teaching the > > American perspective. Or were you absent that day? > > > > I might have missed a day, but most of those 3 month I was there. That is > three months of History dedicated to the US. Many other classes also spend at > least some time to US views, eg English. For the record, they also try to > teach us about other country's/believes. Think Islam/North-Korea/Communism. > > > What I have failed to grasp is any reasoning that would suggest why it is > > logical to argue that America should change to a European perspective, > > yet illogical to argue that it is Europe who, in fact, needs to change > > its perspective. > > > > As long as you are only dealing with the US, don't change a thing. However, as > soon as you start interacting with people from other parts of the world, > you'll have to adapt to find a common way of interaction. > - From some other discussion: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose > begins." > > - -- > Casper Gielen > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - -- > Linux sucks twice as fast and 10 times more reliably, > and since you have the source, it's your fault. -Ca1v1n > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE+LwcWIhQIPPgOSvcRAtxQAJ9KER9QfWCLyXxVdnIkiIGOUwwsqgCcCFXE > L+knVdW+jIfdA4mybj/hp7U= > =V7mS > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:51:56 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ASSUME > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: <RM> > > If somebody manages to collect enough true evidence > > that the world was indeed created in 6 days, than he will > > get the nobel prize and his theory will be taught in school. > > But until than he should not speak nonsense. <SH> > What is nonsense to you and me is truth for many others. > You have to be exposed to a lot of ignorance in order to > recognize that it is perceived by many as changeless truth. Hi all, Might I raise a point of protest to the methodology of making *logical assumptions*? Ricsi makes a valid point that people who lack *true evidence* should not speak nonsense. However, I'm still waiting for the factual evidence to be presented. Sam and Ricsi have carried out an ongoing dialog about many subjects, the central essence perhaps being the various perspectives held by Americans and Europeans. I have, BTW, enjoyed the exchange. I hope others are not annoyed by the running commentary. Unfortunately, Ron, Steve, and myself (and others) have pointed out several factual inconsistencies in some of the *true evidence* offered, so much so that some issues lack any valid proofs. They are, to use Steve's phrase, merely Urban Legends. Urban legends become accepted *facts* because they remain unchallenged and become part of an accepted body of knowledge. Eventually, those who dare to challenge the *facts* are labeled *ignorant* and their own version of the truth is labeled *nonsense*. However, to those who hold an opposing view, the appearance of *intellectual superiority* among those of the majority opinion indicates (to the minority) a degree of arrogance which states, in no uncertain terms, that the majority have no real concern for the ideas or opinions of the minority. Since the minority are stupid and not worthy of serious consideration, they should just shut up and go away. Wow. That is not the path to understanding and the reconciliation of differences. And it is certainly NOT the scientific method! And, so, I will challenge the assumptions. During my undergraduate work, I once asked a PhD in Physical Anthropology (these are the guys who try to date the origin and sequence of the species) for the references of the research that outlined the repeatable experiments which demonstrated the positive results of genetic mutation. The professor taught and insisted that the *scientific method* required documented experimentation that could be repeated with identical results. So, when he taught that biological evolution required both adaptation over time AND genetic mutation, I thought it proper to ask for the research references that proved (through experimentation) the existence of positive results from genetic mutations. I didn't mean to offend, but our text books had only given examples of destructive mutations. Unfortunately, the professor had no references. I made the mistake of suggesting that he was not a very scientific scientist, which made for a most uncomfortable semester. (The professor may not always be right, but he's always the professor). As I recall, he too used words like *nonsense* and *ignorance*. And, I'm sorry to say, he did so repeatedly in public. I still insist that he failed to PROVE his position using the scientific method. And I still believe (if I'm allowed to use that word) that I was right. We should have been given proof in the form of reputable data, not the mere opinion of an individual (no matter how important his position). (Arachne, BTW, would be an excellent tool for presenting scientific evidence linked to reference material). It should be obvious that, since I still remember the incident, it was (to me) a perceived injustice that has not been quickly forgotten. I suggest that there is a principle hidden in this story that has value for the world today. In the quoted dialog above, the authors make some *logical assumptions* that their view is held in common with all others. Specifically, those who reject evolution are ignorant individuals who speak nonsense. I am not offended by Sam and Ricsi's assumptions. Their view is, after all, widely held. I actually enjoy observing the ongoing dialog and, especially, who interjects various comments on various subjects. However, I submit to all the list membership that there would be more peace and less violence in the world if we collectively tried our best to understand *the other* and actively worked to observe their right to be an individual. And that would require us first to challenge our own assumptions and opinions, and allow others to be different. Therefore, I offer the phrase "in my opinion" as a suggested option in potentially disagreeable situations. As a closing word ... A friend of mine once said, "To assume is to make an ASS of U-M-E (you and me)". I must admit that I can only *assume* he was correct, as he offered no scientific evidence. But, if it's just an urban legend, it sure sounds good. <grin> Bob - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:02:36 -0800 (PST) From: Binky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Do you want to unsubscribe ? - --- Binky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday, 1/21/03 at 15:06:48 -0400, > "Clarence Verge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I have been given permission to collect the email > >address of all those who want off this list and > >manually delete their names from a copy of the > >subscriber list. Michael will then attempt to > >overwrite - he says it may not be as easy as it > >sounds - the existing list with the new version. > > > >If you want off, send an email to: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >from the address you wish deleted before this > >weekend. > > > >Don't send your request to the list. > > If it would be easier, another possibility > would be to delete the entire lists for arachne > and arachne-digest and send an e-mail to everyone > on both lists instructing them to re-subscribe to > whichever list they want to receive. > > Binky > Replying to my own message, the more I think about it, the more it seems like deleting the whole list would be a better idea. The people who are most interested in unsubscribing may be ignoring list messages at this point and may not have seen your request to contact you. By asking everyone who is interested to re-subscribe, it becomes an "opt-in" situation rather than an "opt-out" situation. Also, any addresses that are no longer valid will be purged from the list as well, thereby reducing the load on Michael's server. On another note: Maybe the majordomo reply to new subscription requests should read something like: Someone (probably you) has requested to be added to the Arachne mailing list. Before replying to this automated message with your confirmation of said request, please be aware that the Arachne mailing list is classified as a *permanent* mailing list, which differs significantly from a *lifetime* mailing list. With a lifetime mailing list, you continue to receive list messages for the remainder of your natural life: your subscription can only be terminated upon receipt of a valid death certificate. With a permanent mailing list, your subscription can *never* be terminated, under any circumstances whatsoever. This is a particularly useful feature for individuals who have been cloned, or intend to be at some point in the future. Your clone(s) can continue to receive messages from the list even after your demise, with no lapse in continuity. ;o) Binky __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2031 ******************************
