My mom called me the bottomless pit! No diet required...
On Aug 26, 12:33 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > My mom always said my eyes were bigger than my stomach.. > Allan > > mind stomach are you sure that is not a diet group? > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Chris Jenkins > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Stomach's Eye? > > > On Aug 25, 2010 7:59 AM, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 24 Aug, 21:50, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> *laughing* Indeed, sir, although I have not plugged that project here, > > given > > >> that it's not really the right venue for it. > > > > Perhaps Mind's Stomach?? > > > >> 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
