*laughing* Indeed, sir, although I have not plugged that project here, given
that it's not really the right venue for it.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, ornamentalmind
<[email protected]>wrote:

> DamnYummy!
>
> On Aug 24, 12:11 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > *laughing*
> >
> > +1 for you, maam.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > yummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> >
> > > On Aug 24, 2:29 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > The only thing transcendent about me is my cooking. :)
> >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > Our interior back and forth can be much like that - oppositional -
> non
> > > > > dual - oppositional - non dual - EGO - transcendent...
> >
> > > > > The bigger picture eventually allows us the smile.  We did
> establish
> > > > > the fact in this group long ago that the battle of the fallacies
> was
> > > > > more a distraction than any real exchange of ideas.  And yet, like
> our
> > > > > interior dialog, we fall back to it now and again.  If the workings
> of
> > > > > the group actually are merely a reflection of our individual
> interior
> > > > > workings, we can all smile with this exchange, and keep hope alive
> for
> > > > > mutual evolution.
> >
> > > > > On Aug 24, 8:18 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > On 20 Aug, 22:31, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#weaselhttp:.
> > > > > ..
> >
> > > > > > I can only think to respond with:
> > > > >http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
> >
> > > > > > But, after a little more thought, I simply think you decided to
> not
> > > > > > think about what I wrote. Which is a bit:
> > > > >http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#dogged
> >
> > > > > > Or, were you actually responding to me?  You may have been
> responding
> > > > > > to DWB, in which case your response here is:
> > > > >http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#state
> >
> > > > > > All with a big ;-) of course.
> >
> > > > > > > On Aug 20, 6:28 am, Pat <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > On 18 Aug, 20:59, ornamentalmind <[email protected]
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > Gabby...I have and continue to listen. So far as admirable
> as
> > > his
> > > > > > > > > intentions are, they fail.
> >
> > > > > > > > As long as you realise that it wasn't me who stated that “all
> of
> > > our
> > > > > > > > reality must be defined mathematically”.  I use mathematics
> to
> > > > > > > > describe those things that CAN be described by it, but I
> wouldn't
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > > where to begin if you asked me for the 'formula' for such
> > > concepts as
> > > > > > > > 'today'.  Firstly, in order to stand a chance, you'd have to
> know
> > > the
> > > > > > > > full quantum state of the universe, which I've stated, time
> and
> > > time
> > > > > > > > again, no human will ever have.  My intentions don't fail,
> BTW.
> > >  They
> > > > > > > > may not 'convince' but how can my intentions 'fail'?  One
> would
> > > have
> > > > > > > > to be fully conversant with everything I know in order to
> make
> > > that
> > > > > > > > judgement and there is no one other than myself who is so
> > > qualified.
> > > > > > > > So, I'm afraid that, logically, no one but ME can state, as
> fact,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > my intentions have 'failed'.  Although, almost anyone can
> presume
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > But that, by definition, is presumptive, and prone to
> failure.
> > >  ;-)
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 12:35 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Try to listen to what Pat is saying, orn. Cause that's
> what
> > > his
> > > > > maths
> > > > > > > > > > is all about. Bringing it from the plain inaccurate
> flatworld
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > vertical and other dimensions.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > On 18 Aug., 19:18, ornamentalmind <
> > > [email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > As useful as math is for humans, the notion that “all
> of
> > > our
> > > > > reality
> > > > > > > > > > > must be defined mathematically” is outdated and just
> plain
> > > > > inaccurate
> > > > > > > > > > > … at least based upon our current level of mathematics.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 8:50 am, DarkwaterBlight <
> > > [email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I see what you're saying here Ash and can't help but
> > > think
> > > > > that all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > our reality must be defined mathematically. If I fart
> in
> > > a
> > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > > > place and call the guy next me a nasty bastard, he'll
> > > denie
> > > > > that he
> > > > > > > > > > > > passed gas. If I just shrug my shoulders and imply
> that
> > > I'm
> > > > > in fact
> > > > > > > > > > > > the nasty basard who done the deed the effect is the
> > > same...
> > > > > everyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > smells my stench and I'm still the nasty bastard. If
> you
> > > come
> > > > > to my
> > > > > > > > > > > > house for dinner and lick the plate I would't think
> any
> > > less
> > > > > of you
> > > > > > > > > > > > but please excuse yourself before passing gas or you
> will
> > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > reinvited. No one wants to smell ass at the dinner
> table.
> > > The
> > > > > point is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that we each have our own formula for relationships
> and
> > > when
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > process the information correctly the result comes
> out
> > > within
> > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable tolerances.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 16, 2:48 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/9/2010 9:52 AM, Pat wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that usage is not particularly scientific
> but
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > colloquial.  Deane answer, below, is more the
> > > scientific
> > > > > view.  Also,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we must remember that "good person" couldn't
> possibly
> > > > > apply to those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that are not "Homo Sapiens", yet evolution
> applies to
> > > ALL
> > > > > species.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, even if I train my dog to have perfect
> > > "Western"
> > > > > table manners,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's still not a 'good person'--might be a great
> dog
> > > and
> > > > > a helluva
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > canine, but not a good person.  And, of course,
> table
> > > > > manners are no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > show of evolution despite the fact that there are
> > > people
> > > > > who display
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them who feel that they are "a product of better
> > > > > breeding"; whereas,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in truth, it might just be better 'training'
> (i.e.,
> > > table
> > > > > manners is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > little more than 'stupid human tricks' and
> certainly
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate whether or not a person is 'good' or
> have
> > > any
> > > > > bearing on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > their evolution).  As an aside to this and to
> link
> > > them
> > > > > together in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sideways kind of way, I suppose the habit that
> > > Englishmen
> > > > > have of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'holding the knife with the right hand' whether
> or
> > > not
> > > > > the individual
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is using it, MAY actually BE good evolution, as
> it
> > > > > affords them a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > better chance at defending themselves if attacked
> > > whilst
> > > > > eating!!
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this thread has covered habit, habitat and
> now
> > > > > habituation :),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and I agree often walking and talking like one may
> be a
> > > > > sign, but then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > what is this 'duck' anyways?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Surprise a southpaw might keep the knife in the
> right
> > > for
> > > > > more practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reasons, one might want to reserve the greatest
> asset
> > > to
> > > > > flexible use,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a split second how many people will drop a knife
> for
> > > one
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dozens of other effective weapons at a dinner
> table.
> > > Well
> > > > > the thought
> > > > > > > > > > > > > crossed my mind recently when I wondered why I was
> > > cutting
> > > > > awkwardly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with my right. I switched for ease but was annoyed
> at
> > > the
> > > > > fact this gave
> > > > > > > > > > > > > away tactical information. After consideration I
> > > decided it
> > > > > is best to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > keep a hot cup of coffee at the table, glass
> plates,
> > > and
> > > > > preferably a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > table/chairs with wooden legs and not bolted to the
> > > floor.
> > > > > There's large
> > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers of people around, all pretending to be
> caught
> > > up in
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > > > table-worlds, conspicuous consumption at it's best.
> > > Worst
> > > > > of all, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can't lick my plate. :( I should stand up before
> > > leaving
> > > > > and do that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sometime just to see what it feels like, would I
> feel
> > > the
> > > > > cruching
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anxiety of people judging me or would I feel free?
> I
> > > could
> > > > > think to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > myself I feel free of judgement, while the
> onlookers
> > > would
> > > > > say look what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > society is devolving into. My secret is while most
> > > people
> > > > > would think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this doglike behavior, I have pride in it, I
> remember
> > > how
> > > > > little most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > know of dogs (people, or reality) or what it is
> like to
> > > > > starve like one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing directed at you personally Pat, just
> ranting
> > > > > somewhat in context.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>

Reply via email to