On 18 Jan, 16:29, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > What's the statute of limitations Pat? >
For abject vandalism that, as far as I know, no one reported (until now), probably 7 years. Which would make me about 27 years clear of that. Besides, I was a minor at the time (probably 13/14). Why on Earth would anyone waste time and money on THAT? And I can't think that England would extradite me to the States for such a thing. No, I think it's safe to go into the memoirs as 'a stupid kid thing'. > On 18 Jan, 15:28, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 18 Jan, 13:56, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I remember whipping up some gunpowder and stuffing it in a metal pipe > > > to make a "flare". (Un)fortunately it was raining the day of haloween > > > when I tried to light it, the matches I had wouldn't strike, and I > > > chucked it so as not to miss the candy! > > > That reminds me of the time that a friend and I filled an empty CO2 > > cartridge with gunpowder (taken from dismantling shotgun shells!!), > > stuck a fuse through the hole in the cap and crimped the cap back down > > onto the cartridge. We lit it, tossed it into a mailbox and BLAM! It > > sounded like a cannon had gone off. And it blew a hole in the side of > > the mailbox about 5 inches across. Boy did we run...fast!!! ;-) > > > > I also remember turning a step down transformer around in a circuit (I > > > thought the problem with it was there "wasn't enough electricity" and > > > I thought using the tranformer in step up configuration would fix the > > > problem by "increasing the amount of electricity" - I really knew what > > > I was doing (NOT)). > > > > Anyway. They were the good ole days. Glad and mystified that I > > > survived them. > > > > On Jan 14, 5:56 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 14 Jan, 15:59, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Don, I even took the golden fiddle with me as a peace offering! > > > > > > I take the same view Orn, perhaps from a Quaker perspective. In fact, > > > > > if I was of draftable age, I might well become a Plymouth Bretheren > > > > > member. Jared Diamond has put the same view in 'Collapse'. I don't > > > > > really believe we can do anything "active" on bringing about (or > > > > > letting come about) sustainable communities until we get to a proper > > > > > understanding of the vile state of politics throughout history. That > > > > > we have no real history ready-to-hand all over the world is surely the > > > > > most damning evidence of conspiracy. Water supply in parts of Peru > > > > > strikes me as a classic. They had technology (admittedly religious > > > > > cult power related) thousands of years back better than now. > > > > > > I suppose one the the words we use as though we know what it is with > > > > > almost no clue is "evidence". I can think here of gel-coated slides > > > > > stuck in an electro-chemical experiment that come out with a few > > > > > 'scratches' on them - "evidence of cold-fusion" - yet surely not to > > > > > the untrained, ignorant eye. But I can also think of mad examples > > > > > from our legal systems, where "experts" convince judges, defence > > > > > barristers and juries not to trust the evidence of their eyes in > > > > > looking at CCTV footage, where, in the end, the whole performance was > > > > > about suppressing the real evidence and the truth is really about mad > > > > > human behaviour in authority situations. > > > > > > I can imagine a few of us in here on the Nico Bento jury. Let's say > > > > > me, you, Fidd, Molly, Gabby, Ian, Chris, Don (add others to taste). > > > > > Apparently quite a diverse group as we often disagree and even 'fall > > > > > out', though probably not so diverse when one considers the whole > > > > > population. It seems impossible to believe we would have convicted > > > > > the fellow because we would have scrutinized the "evidence" (however > > > > > much we might worry about the term's epistemological status) and, one > > > > > hopes, asked relevant questions. Could we have been hornswaggled and > > > > > kow-towed by the now known to be loony "expert" telling us not to > > > > > believe the evidence of our eyes in relevant CCTV footage? I suspect > > > > > the presence of any one of us on the jury would have prevented the > > > > > conviction, even by majority verdict. We know enough. Yet the > > > > > British system did find 12 'men good and true' to convict a man of > > > > > murder with no evidence there was one, and plenty to suggest the > > > > > accused was telling the truth. I guess too, on the inside of the > > > > > later cold-fusion experiments we could learn enough to conclude (a > > > > > long way down the line from the Fleischman-Pons flim-flam), there is > > > > > enough evidence to continue investigation, at least to provide a > > > > > better understanding of electro-chemistry. > > > > > > Your assertions, Bill, on the 'dogma of evidence' could be seen as > > > > > rather tired, or as another example of the religious denial of > > > > > evidence in favour of faith. I find them neither. Your reference to > > > > > Alan Wallace (say) is an exciting possibility, as is the existence of > > > > > your general view across the board whilst 'leaving in' spiritual > > > > > possibilities, strongly held, but not dogmatically imposed. There no > > > > > doubt remain questions, down to whether non-dogmatism could itself be > > > > > dogmatic (as in fatuous undecidable deconstruction taken strongly > > > > > rather than as a weak version). I doubt Nico Bento would have cared > > > > > if one of us had been able to stand up for justice for him. > > > > > > I often wonder whether one can do science at all without passion from > > > > > at least quasi-religious experience, other than the cook-book- > > > > > engineering form (my slap-in-the-face with a wet fish 'realism'). I > > > > > can make gunpowder (and worse) because I can 'destructibly distill > > > > > wood' (charcoal), buy flowers of sulphur (or make it from photographic > > > > > chemicals and lemon juice) and turn urine into potassium nitrate with > > > > > some burned sea-weed, use a pestle and mortar, dissolve the lot and > > > > > dry it out. This is no more 'science' than baking a cake (indeed such > > > > > skills are involved). I can throw numbers into equations ('string > > > > > theory' - though my expertise is in stoichiometry) and wonder whether > > > > > experimental discovery of one-way speeds of light might return us to > > > > > Galilean relativism more powerful than Einstein's. I favour space > > > > > exploration, both up and down. > > > > > That reminds me of the time a friend of mine and I (at about age > > > > 16-17) decided to make some home-made ether. I had some pure sulpher > > > > from an old chemisty set. We mixed that with some cigarette ashes > > > > (for carbon, as a catalyst, so that, when we burned it, we got sulpher > > > > trioxide rather than sulpher dioxide, which we WOULD have gotten had > > > > we burned the sulpher without the carbon), burned it, captured the > > > > smoke in a bottle. Then turned that bottle upside down into another, > > > > slightly smaller bottle (as the one fit into the other pretty snugly) > > > > and shook it up until the smoke was mostly absorbed into the water. > > > > We repeated that process until we had a reasonable strong sulphuric > > > > acid. Then, went down to the local pharmacy, bought some glycerine, > > > > and mixed that in and, voila, we had our own ether. And it was > > > > definitely strong enough to have immediate effects upon smelling it. > > > > And all that was done on my parents' back porch. Ahh, those were the > > > > days!! ;-) > > > > > > 'Why questions' do not miraculously disappear in any of this. I am > > > > > not likely to threaten a set of under-performing lasers with the bible > > > > > (yet in exasperation have been known to do something very similar). I > > > > > am enraged when simple statistical methods are not used to evaluate > > > > > problems in our legal systems, and note it's a scientist that is > > > > > enraged. The problem with science is not that it is value-free, but > > > > > that it can be done by those with perverse values. It is profoundly > > > > > unscientific not to try and discover, to exclude 'data' from > > > > > consideration, not to experiment in experience. I cannot even > > > > > hypothesise there is 'no god' (though I do think most history on this > > > > > is bunk) as a scientist and remain intellectually honest. I make > > > > > epistemological decisions that involve faith and 'epistemic risk'. In > > > > > every scientific activity I can think of one has to exclude (after > > > > > consideration) all sorts of barking dross. The same seems true of > > > > > history in general. It may be true of religion. > > > > > > The fact that I will go through this effort rather than have a life > > > > > with a 'string of broads on the Riviera' after a few bwanking lies > > > > > seems itself to imply I am 'after something deeper'. I may die and > > > > > look back wishing I had done 'more of the enjoyable stuff'! I may > > > > > well have swallowed some moralising incantations and not recovered. > > > > > So might Dawkins. I find most religion stupid, selfish, rotten at the > > > > > core and manipulative. Rather like social science and politics. If > > > > > there was a way to explain all this in 'cold logic' and evidence, one > > > > > might still have the problem of this 'magical experience of all' not > > > > > being communable with everyone else (as they would be too dumb). So I > > > > > am not a man of the gleaming rays of inner peace or virtue that bloats > > > > > to sanctimony at the drop of a patronising Socrates pun or a scrabble > > > > > over crumbs in times of hardship. > > > > > > If we can defend Nico Bento (and properly get near to real social > > > > > justice) we have come far enough. We haven't. I just prioritize this > > > > > as something we could do in ordinary practice as a core of what our > > > > > research programme should be. The 'light' comes later for me. In a > > > > > forced decision, I would burn religious scrolls and books to stay warm > > > > > before turning to others. To dismiss religion in the name of science > > > > > is merely religious. This should not stop us expressing what > > > > > 'religion' makes us feel or what 'science' makes us feel, though > > > > > something does tend to stop us letting people who think mechanics is > > > > > the > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
