Tried looking it up but the spelling is incorrect. Allan On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 26 Aug, 05:33, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > My mom always said my eyes were bigger than my stomach.. > > Allan > > > > Hyperopthalmogastroremosis*, eh? Not an uncommon occurrence amongst > children and teens, but you almost NEVER read about it under that > name. Well...not until I made it up. ;-) > > *The 'remo' bit I added was for 'rem' the Greek for 'relate', so the > whole word is a bit like "big eye stomach relationship condition". > > > > 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 - > -- ( ) I_D Allan Be Paranoid. God is always building a better idiot!!!
