Re: media stratagy meetings: was RE: Mobile labs ...
Second part of reply, much abbreviated as I'm trying not to re-hash stuff too much. wry I'm sure I'll be corrected if I misremember something. ;) --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The article is certainly slanted against the Admin's position, but many of the points/questions are valid. The question still remains, what if we had done nothing? I prefer, What if we had made a determined, strong-arm-under-the-table-if-necessary, effort to get the UN Security Council to enforce the Resolutions on Iraq from the beginning of this administration, instead of in the latter half of 2002? I didn't advocate 'nothing,' but noted that a UN-led force would be better (less crusade effect, more to share costs, etc); we will never know if an early-on genuine diplomatic effort - instead of the arrogance and isolationism displayed - by the administration would have succeeded in getting the Security Council to back up UN resolutions with force. There was a lot of discussion about intervening on 'moral' grounds; I noted that the US hadn't intervened in Rwanda etc., and had supported SH in the '80's, but have to agree that bad decisions then shouldn't stop good decisions now. I brought up Vietnam as an example of a determined 'people's opposition,' but that hasn't been much of a factor so far (the current sniping, though very sad for the lives lost, doesn't count in the 'big picture'). And assassination apparently just wasn't possible; normally I'd say it shouldn't even be a consideration (and is against official US policy), but for truly cruel, murderous men such as Saddam, Idi Amin, etc. - quiet exceptions are the lesser of evils, IMO. Relations with those nations/regimes who opposed intervention in Iraq are slowly being rebuilt, and maybe the UN can be altered into a more effective and coherent force (I must agree that the single-veto power of UN SC members really makes enforcing resolutions a joke -- an overhaul is definitely due!). Publicly exposing - and repeating as necessary - the ties/interests that regimes have WRT non-intervention in human-rights violators seems one of the most valuable services the media can supply. Some do try. Not that the families of the Laci Petersons of the world don't deserve our sympathy, but for real news I check the BBC and The Economist (well, I have in the past half-year or so -- I'm trying to treat real news as difficult to find as good studies on alternative medicine: very annoying!). Iraqis would still be under a ruthless dictator. Is that what you want? One of those hosed any way you answer questions, but good from a lawyer's POV (I'm slowly learning to think along legal lines - very different from medical!). No. Not that what I want has any bearing on reality, such as whether Ashcroft gets his 'Patriot II.' (Annoying, isn't it, when an issue is twisted into another one? ;} ) Iraq didn't keep it's agreements which we required to seace hostilities. We made repeted requests and atempted to resolve the issue though ambasidors and inspecors. They kept cheeting. We did exactly what we said we would do if they didn't follow the original agreement. See above re: genuine diplomacy WRT the UN, which I suppose was a moot point by that time (roughly last spring), although it shouldn't have been. Still, it's possible that even a true effort would have been stymied by France, Russia or Germany; maybe that's one of the factors that prevented Clinton from acting on Iraq (can someone remind me of when that was? '97 or 8? An article was posted on-list, IIRC). Muddling along is very emotionally unsatisfying, but sometimes it's the best of multiple lousy choices. As for credible, immediate and significant threat, a nation has the right to defend itself -- but it had better have hard evidence to back up any pre-emptive strike. Which I said in roughly those terms last summer. Debbi PS - Sorry for not labeling the last one [L3]; it read as 9K in my Draft file, but 11K on-list. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Reality Check (was: Plonkworthy?)
--- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Baker wrote: Andy said: You do not chose to be Jewish if your mother is. You are Jewish. Isn't that argument roughly the same as if I set up the Slaves of Rich and said anyone with brown eyes was automatically a Slave of Rich and when people with brown eyes said they weren't my slaves I replied Yes you are - everyone with brown eyes is!? Or is Judaism linked to a mitochondrial gene or something? There are certain genetic traits which are typically only found in Jews (such as Tay-Sachs disease), but it as is much cultural as religious. Would you try to deny your skin colour? I remembered hearing about an African tribe who claimed to be Jewish, of the Cohen lineage; there is are certain genes carried on the Y chromosome which *are* linked to the priestly caste Cohen: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=10677325dopt=Abstract The Lemba are a traditionally endogamous group speaking a variety of Bantu languages who live in a number of locations in southern Africa. They claim descent from Jews who came to Africa from Sena. Sena is variously identified by them as Sanaa in Yemen, Judea, Egypt, or Ethiopia. A previous study using Y-chromosome markers suggested both a Bantu and a Semitic contribution to the Lemba gene pool, a suggestion that is not inconsistent with Lemba oral tradition. To provide a more detailed picture of the Lemba paternal genetic heritage, we analyzed 399 Y chromosomes for six microsatellites and six biallelic markers in six populations (Lemba, Bantu, Yemeni-Hadramaut, Yemeni-Sena, Sephardic Jews, and Ashkenazic Jews). The high resolution afforded by the markers shows that Lemba Y chromosomes are clearly divided into Semitic and Bantu clades. Interestingly, one of the Lemba clans carries, at a very high frequency, a particular Y-chromosome type termed the Cohen modal haplotype, which is known to be characteristic of the paternally inherited Jewish priesthood and is thought, more generally, to be a potential signature haplotype of Judaic origin... From http://www.cohen-levi.org/dna.htm ...Jewishness is not defined genetically. Other Y-chromosomes can enter the Jewish gene pool through conversion or through a non-Jewish father. Jewish status is determined by the mother. Tribe membership follows the fathers line... This is an interesting article that uses DNA research to provide some evidence for what is basically a religious belief...which appears to have a degree of 'reality.' ;) Debbi It's All In The Genes? Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Red Mars to air on SCI FI
I just read the following on SCIFIWEEKLY: Producer Gale Ann Hurd (Hulk, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines) has signed a deal with the SCI FI Channel to produce the six-hour miniseries, Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars. The announcement closely follows another high-profile deal made recently by the SCI FI Channel with filmmakers Dean Devlin (Independence Day, Stargate) and Bryan Singer (X-Men, X2) to develop The Triangle, an eight-hour miniseries centered around the mysteries of the Bermuda Triangle. Based on Robinson's best-selling novel of the same name, Red Mars chronicles the epic adventure of the first hundred colonists on Mars and their perilous mission to create a new world. Author Robinson, a member of NASA's Mars Committee, will consult on the project, which will be written by Gregory Widen (Highlander, Backdraft). Currently in development, the project is slated to air in late 2004. I've read and heard good and bad things about the SCI FI Channel. We don't get it in Korea, but friends record some events for me. The few things I've seen have been pretty good. I really enjoyed the REd/Green/Blue Mars trilogy and I truly hope they do a good job with it. The others I've seen: Dune: I think they did an excellent job with this. I've watched it 3 times. Children of Dune: Pretty good. They left out a bit, but the basics of Dune Messiah and Children of Dune were faithfully portrayed. Riverworld: After reading comments on the list, I wasn't too hopeful. However, I was pleasantly surprised. The basics of To Your Scattered Bodies Go and The Fabulous Riverboat were there. While the movie was rather predictable, I enjoyed watching it. It screams sequel or series. George A P.S. A friend recommended (loaning me the DVD) I watch a mini-series called The 10th Kingdom. I was sceptical at first, but ended up really having a good time with it. Anyone seen it? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
Julia What the heck are you doing at a bar at 3 - 4am? Who said anything about bar and AM? It's a restaurant, so, well, OK, they *do* have a bar, but you don't even need to sit there if you want to order margaritas (and I have no idea how their margaritas are, I'd have to ask Chuck or Renee, if even one of *them* had ordered one at some point), and I go out with folks once a month on Sunday afternoon after a meeting, and as the meeting tends to get out around 2:30 or 2:45 and it takes us awhile to figure out where we're going to eat and then to *get* there, when they changed their closing time to 3PM from 4PM, we just kinda wrote them off our list (and went to the *next* Tex-Mex joint south of there, which Shane said was pretty good, and it wasn't that bad, and I think we went back there one time after that). Now that Barton Springs Rd. is open again, if we want Tex-Mex, it oughtn't be too difficult to go to Chuy's or Baby Acapulco. (And it's the Chuy's that the Bush twins got busted at, if anyone gives a flip.) Julia Was just joking. Since you didn't put in the evil AM or PM, I assumed military. Assume it was a bar was easy. Kevin T. - VRWC Where is Alberto anyway? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Red Mars to air on SCI FI
P.S. A friend recommended (loaning me the DVD) I watch a mini-series called The 10th Kingdom. I was sceptical at first, but ended up really having a good time with it. Anyone seen it? George A The 10th Kingdom was a great family movie, I even bought my daughter the DVD. Who could not like a movie that shows trolls enjoying the Bee Gees or mushrooms singing The Whiter Shade Of Pale? Gary PS - The 10th Kingdom was actually a Hallmark movie, not Sci-Fi :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: media stratagy meetings: was RE: Mobile labs identified asUK-made weather balloon systems
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I snipped massively, particularly where we said basically the same thing. --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is the radio address text... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html I see, you did the same thing I did, only we seem to disagree to some extent. You read in a lot to what he was saying, I did not. You made assumptions and followed implications, I did not. Of course I was not listening to the talking head review that came after the address. I am of the opinion that you got your take from some such review. Incorrect. I did not hear this address, I only read the text. I have read no commentary on this text (other than the article I posted, which as you noted commented only on a few isolated sentences). Please do not do me the disservice of saying that I cannot read a text and come to my own conclusions. I was only offering you a possible explination for why our take on the address is so differnt. Inadvertently I may have allso ininsuated that you are an idiot. (later in the message) I did neither mean not believe this, and I still do not. Please do not take my response as a personal attack. It is not intended as that, even though I may inadvertently be clasifying you with a larger group that I have refered to in a negative light. Don't get me wrong, he is spining, but he is not saying the words you are puting in his mouth. He just isn't, you or someoen you listend to is. I put nothing into his mouth. Implications are part of the design and aim of a good speechwriter. Innuendo is not truth or reason; it contributes nothing to rational choice. All true, but in todays atmosphere and polotics you can not blame someone for allowing you to read such implications as fact or statement. Innuendo is definaly not truth or reason, but unfortunatly with the way things are it is your job to filter that out, not thiers. Specificaly beouse EVERYONE on all sides of the issue are doing this. They way in which they did it was far less gerevous, and much easier to filter than their oponents specificly becouse they were very carful not to exagerate anything, or twist the words of others (counter spin) in the course of their addresses. We resumed, and ended the war, not becouse we knew they had WMDs, but becouse they had broken the agreements they made to ensure a sesation of hostilities. Yet UN inspectors, back for the first time in years, were 'making progress' (albeit only under the threat of the military might poised around Iraq) Yes but the final chance they were recieving for the inspections to work was squandered by them cheeting and liying the same as they had done previously. What about the inpracticality of...Sitting on Sadam's doorstep in a seig for another 12 years... UNSC involvement would have spread the costs, Why? It never has beofore. and probably shortened 'time to invasion' significantly. You yourslef admited that France was going to play anti-us no matter the cost. They signed the resolution stating that the slightest violation meant serious consequences. Even in french that doesn't mean, wast US tax dollers and US citizen soldure time (away from their jobs) to sit and babysit Sadam. But that does appear to be exactly what they wanted. We cannot leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man. Remember the security of america also depends on our ability to respond elsewhere in the world (like our own shores?) we can no-longer aford (echonomicaly or security) to expect to keep our troops fully engagen in a seig or a no-fly protection for others. All the soldiers in the world cannot protect an open society from determined and trained men willing to kill themselves. But they can keep them from getting the money to buy the material to make the bombs they kill mass amounts of people with. All the information-gathering done by massive computers cannot make a supervisor listen to a field agent's alarming report. agreed Do you advise that we pull our current troops from South Korea, Japan and Germany among many others? Something MUST be done about Korea. We can not have that stand off last for ever. Germany and Japan are strategic bases we would like to keep. IIRC, several folk posted that they think other countries should start pulling more of their own weight in the self-defense realm; this might be a good long-term policy, but I think it would be de-stabilizing if done abruptly. Absolutly especialy in the case of Korea. I seem to recall a post that suggested that the EU would be able to handle most of its own defenses by ~ 2015? Can anybody clarify? Their were pictures found in seveal places in Iraq depicting an Iraqi Air plane flying into
Re: Mobile labs identified as UK-made weather balloon systems
At 09:44 AM 6/11/2003 +0100, you wrote: Jeff said: The claim, however, that the two vehicles are mobile germ labs has been repeated frequently by both Blair and President George Bush in recent days in support of claims that they prove the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I'm starting to think the recent war was really supposed to be the invasion of North Korea and MI6 and the CIA got the wrong coordinates from a high school student's web page... Rich No, when they were transfering facts back and forth, there was an error in the translation of miles to kilometers. After many many transfers, they were 4391miles/7066 km away. http://www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/java/capitals.htm Kevin T. - VRWC It's cheaper to keep her. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Red Mars to air on SCI FI
On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 10:11 am, G. D. Akin wrote: P.S. A friend recommended (loaning me the DVD) I watch a mini-series called The 10th Kingdom. I was sceptical at first, but ended up really having a good time with it. Anyone seen it? I've seen most of it. It was nice to see Rutger Hauer and Dianne Wiest still working. Kimberly Williams is cute in a Brittany Murphy/Anna Faris kind of way (only older and less successful) ...it was quite fun :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: Does God exist? Yes. (The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.) Does Allah exist? Does Zeus exist? Does Odin exist? I'm not saying that this is what I believe, or that it is the only possibility, but could these perhaps be alternative names for the same being, with the apparent differences between them perhaps being due to the limited understanding of the men who described them? Is there more than one God? What happens when two omnipotent Gods want two different things? If there is more than one being who holds the office of God, why wouldn't they cooperate rather than compete? Is there life after death? Based on what I know, I believe so. (Besides, there's always Pascal's wager to consider.) Does God listen to your prayers? Yes. If He's really busy, you'll get His voice mail and He'll get back to you. Is God immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient? As different people use those terms in different ways, you will have to define them more precisely before the question can be answered. Did God create the world? Yes. Lots of others, too. Did God create the world in a state that makes it appear that the earth is billions of years old and that mankind evolved from single-celled organisms? Obviously He did, as that is the way it appears. It doesn't mean that those things aren't as they appear, either. Why? Perhaps that is the method He used to create the world. Is the big bang theory the best explanation for the beginning of the universe? Is evolution the best explanation for the origin of mankind? So far as we know now, yes. Did Christ die and come back to life? Yes. Have you ever eaten a part of the body of Christ or drank of his blood? Probably, along with atoms which were once part of the bodies or blood of numerous other historical figures. Do you have an immortal soul? Last time I checked, I did. (So do you, FWIW.) What are its other properties? I don't know what the physical properties of the spirit are. About all I do know is that if I encountered the spirit of someone I had known while they were alive in mortality, I would recognize that person. Are Christian Scientists who refuse proven medical treatment for their child's chronic illness behaving rationally? They think so. Personally, I believe that God approves of doctors, and indeed has made it possible for some wo/men to become doctors and to learn how to care for the bodies we have while in this stage of our lives. Do miracles (i.e., phenomena that cannot be explained scientifically) occur? Sometimes, with the caveat that science does not claim to be able to explain everything at the current time. Did God disapprove of Galileo? IMO, no. Did God order the Crusades? If He did, I think a lot of what happened was ad-libbed by the Crusaders. How do you know? I don't know: as I said, that's my opinion. Should a woman be allowed to be a priest? A bishop? The pope? If you are asking about the Catholic church specifically, I have no opinion, having never been a Catholic. If you are asking whether women will ever be ordained to the Priesthood: if and when God decides that that should happen, He will inform the appropriate authorities of His wishes. Which part(s) of the Bible are fundamental teachings of God and which (if any) are just stories? I suspect that there are some parts which qualify as both, as Jesus often used parables to teach important truths when He was preaching while He was here in mortality. Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. Hope that helps. -- Ronn! :) People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Anonymous ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Red Mars to air on SCI FI
At 05:53 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: P.S. A friend recommended (loaning me the DVD) I watch a mini-series called The 10th Kingdom. I was sceptical at first, but ended up really having a good time with it. Anyone seen it? George A The 10th Kingdom was a great family movie, I even bought my daughter the DVD. Who could not like a movie that shows trolls enjoying the Bee Gees or mushrooms singing The Whiter Shade Of Pale? Is the DVD the whole ten hours as it was originally broadcast, or the repeat broadcast where they cut out a couple of hours, including some of the best stuff? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
At 05:47 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote: Julia What the heck are you doing at a bar at 3 - 4am? Who said anything about bar and AM? It's a restaurant, so, well, OK, they *do* have a bar, but you don't even need to sit there if you want to order margaritas (and I have no idea how their margaritas are, I'd have to ask Chuck or Renee, if even one of *them* had ordered one at some point), and I go out with folks once a month on Sunday afternoon after a meeting, and as the meeting tends to get out around 2:30 or 2:45 and it takes us awhile to figure out where we're going to eat and then to *get* there, when they changed their closing time to 3PM from 4PM, we just kinda wrote them off our list (and went to the *next* Tex-Mex joint south of there, which Shane said was pretty good, and it wasn't that bad, and I think we went back there one time after that). Now that Barton Springs Rd. is open again, if we want Tex-Mex, it oughtn't be too difficult to go to Chuy's or Baby Acapulco. (And it's the Chuy's that the Bush twins got busted at, if anyone gives a flip.) Julia Was just joking. Since you didn't put in the evil AM or PM, I assumed military. Assume it was a bar was easy. Have you so soon forgotten what happens when you assume? Kevin T. - VRWC Where is Alberto anyway? I've been wondering that, too. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:49 -0500 At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: lots of snippage throughout Is there more than one God? What happens when two omnipotent Gods want two different things? If there is more than one being who holds the office of God, why wouldn't they cooperate rather than compete? IMO, your answer doesn't really answer the question though. If the God of the Assyrians says that every Babylonian should be killed, and the God of the Babylonians says every Assyrian should be killed, who's right? It's all well and good to say why wouldn't they cooperate, but that doesn't always happen. Tonight, on WWF Smackdown To take it one step further, here's a good example with regards to food. Let's call it the Cow Paradox. Hindus say their God(s) say that cows are sacred and should never be eaten. Jews say their God says that cows are not sacred and can be eaten at any time except on fast days as long as they are killed in a specified manner. Catholics believe that their God says that cows can be eaten any time except Lent, no matter how they are killed. Which God is correct, and which are smoking cow patties? These are contradictory statements. They cannot be waved away with the comment 'they're all correct' because that's an illogical conclusion based on the available evidence. Either cows are sacred or they are not. I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going with his question. Am I right? Which part(s) of the Bible are fundamental teachings of God and which (if any) are just stories? I suspect that there are some parts which qualify as both, as Jesus often used parables to teach important truths when He was preaching while He was here in mortality. So are the Bible Literalists, the Baptist sects of Christianity, wrong in your opinion? Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Jon _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. Hope that helps. -- Ronn! :) Here's a different explanation for the survey: Scientists generally define believe differently than others do. Not that I can really define believe. The best I can do is acts as if it were true, which doesn't really help in matters of the spirit. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
I do wonder, at some point will the credibility of these people just evaporate? I mean, will people say, gee, the people of Iraq _did_ celebrate when we arrived, Saddam _was_ defeated fairly easily, the country _didn't_ collapse into civil war, the museum _wasn't_ looted, and so on - at some point will the media say (as the public already has) that empirical reality and these people's beliefs are, let's be kind, orthogonal? I have no problem admitting all of that. Will the Bush administration ever admit that they cannot find the WMD they swore up and down they knew exactly where they were? Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
-Original Message- From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 08:42 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth From _The Guardian_ (that bastion of pro-Bush propaganda): http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974193,00.html As JDG has pointed out, the number of items currently believed to have been stolen is 33 and dropping. If the Smithsonian lost 33 major items and over 3,000 minor items, you better believe it'd be called the heist of the century. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Plonkworthy?
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Plonkworthy? Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 23:35:04 -0700 (PDT) --- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of Deborah Harrell William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Religion is extremist by nature. YAWN stre-e-etch curl up comfortably under the lilac bush Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru :) Why Lilac? :) Perhaps Gandalf's or the hobbits' pipes were made of lilac: http://www.devonian.ualberta.ca/pwatch/lilac.htm ?Syringa' originates from the Greek ?syrinx', meaning hollow stem. One of the first common names for Syringa vulgaris in English was ?pipe tree', because the straight stems made excellent pipes. The stem was used by ancient Greek doctors to inject medications into their patients... It's an indicator plant: snip It travels well and is hardy: snip But most of all, I loved it as a child: the marvelous odor from the lavender blooms, how perfect a secret meeting place the lilac thicket on the crest of the hill made, playing at Mowgli peering out from the jungle to the houses below... I remember playing around a huge hedge of them at my grandparents place in Pennsylvania when I was young. That smell always brings back the memory of playing on their swing and eating big helpings of pancakes, eggs and sausages. :) (The scent would drift in through the windows every morning over breakfast.) My cats like to hang out under the lilac bush out back; it's cool, shady, and protects from sharp bird eyes as well as silly dog noses. ;) Heh. If they're anything like mine, they probably like the scent as well. My cats rub themselves all over the place if there's something floral scented about. Too cool!!! Thanks for posting this. Fascinating! :) Jon _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
At 10:32 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:49 -0500 At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: lots of snippage throughout Is there more than one God? What happens when two omnipotent Gods want two different things? If there is more than one being who holds the office of God, why wouldn't they cooperate rather than compete? IMO, your answer doesn't really answer the question though. If the God of the Assyrians says that every Babylonian should be killed, and the God of the Babylonians says every Assyrian should be killed, who's right? It's all well and good to say why wouldn't they cooperate, but that doesn't always happen. Tonight, on WWF Smackdown My point is that there is no separate God of the Assyrians and God of the Babylonians, therefore that question is meaningless. Which part(s) of the Bible are fundamental teachings of God and which (if any) are just stories? I suspect that there are some parts which qualify as both, as Jesus often used parables to teach important truths when He was preaching while He was here in mortality. So are the Bible Literalists, the Baptist sects of Christianity, wrong in your opinion? Given that there are passages in the KJV which contradict other passages in the KJV, not to mention portions of one version of the Bible which do not agree with another version, and that Bible Literalists believe that when Genesis says that the Earth was created in six days that means six days of twenty-four hours each, each hour consisting of 3600 seconds, and each second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10^9) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom, or, alternatively, the time required for an electromagnetic field to propagate 299,792,458 meters (2.99792458 x 10^8 m) through a vacuum, which either contradicts the scientific evidence or requires ridiculous gyrations to attempt to make it fit, yes, they are wrong. (IMO.) Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Thank you, but I've never found any problem with voicing my views. If I get ostracized, it is more usually by fundamentalist Christians/Bible literalists who disagree with my religious views. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:40:41AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: My point is that there is no separate God of the Assyrians and God of the Babylonians, therefore that question is meaningless. Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge. Given that there are passages in the KJV which contradict other passages in the KJV, not to mention portions of one version of the Bible which do not agree with another version, and that Bible Literalists believe that when Genesis says that the Earth was created in six days that means six days of twenty-four hours each, each hour consisting of 3600 seconds, and each second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10^9) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom, or, alternatively, the time required for an electromagnetic field to propagate 299,792,458 meters (2.99792458 x 10^8 m) through a vacuum, which either contradicts the scientific evidence or requires ridiculous gyrations to attempt to make it fit, yes, they are wrong. (IMO.) Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical tests, it is all absurd. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge. Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical tests, it is all absurd. What empirical tests have you performed to check if your belief is correct? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:04:49AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: Does God exist? Yes. (The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.) In other words, you have no evidence. That's irrational. Does Allah exist? Does Zeus exist? Does Odin exist? I'm not saying that this is what I believe, or that it is the only possibility, but could these perhaps be alternative names for the same being, with the apparent differences between them perhaps being due to the limited understanding of the men who described them? Most of them would not agree. And why did they get it so wrong and so different? The simplest answer is that it is all made-up fantasy. If there is more than one being who holds the office of God, why wouldn't they cooperate rather than compete? Because many religious people have said they compete? You've never read about Greek and Roman gods? Based on what I know, I believe so. But you presented no empirical evidence in the form of a repeatable experiment that anyone can do. So this is just your irrational fantasy.. (Besides, there's always Pascal's wager to consider.) Absurd. I say there are thousands of entities who will give you an afterlife, but only if they are the strongest when you die (they are always competing for top dog/god and the places flip-flop) . Unfortunately, each entity requires a separate and often conflicted tribute during your life in order to get the afterlife. Of course my version is absurd too. That's the point. There are an infinite number of such possible wagers, and you have no empirical evidence to show which one is correct. Does God listen to your prayers? Yes. If He's really busy, you'll get His voice mail and He'll get back to you. Can you provide empirical evidence and a repeatable experiment that I can perform to verify your assertion? Otherwise you are essentially claiming the same as that invisible pink unicorns that are undetectable roam around us all the time and listen to what we say. Absurd and irrational. Is God immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient? As different people use those terms in different ways, you will have to define them more precisely before the question can be answered. Take the first dictionary definition you find (i.e., the one labeled 1. in the most handy dictionary) and use that. I'm sure that will adequately define it. Did God create the world? Yes. Lots of others, too. And you can determine this in a repeatable experiment? How do you know it wasn't created by a bunch of white mice who are really super-intelligent? Obviously He did, as that is the way it appears. It doesn't mean that those things aren't as they appear, either. Only obviously to a irrational person. Considering the infinite variety of untestable creation fantasies that have equivalent expletive power. Big Bang best explanation? So far as we know now, yes. Many religious people have claimed otherwise. Did Christ die and come back to life? Yes. Irrational. These things just don't happen in the world we live in. Have you ever eaten a part of the body of Christ or drank of his blood? Probably, along with atoms which were once part of the bodies or blood of numerous other historical figures. Cute. Surely you knew the intent of the question. And you surely know that many literalists claim that they have. Do you have an immortal soul? Last time I checked, I did. (So do you, FWIW.) Irrational. It is unreasonable to say that a specific type of an infinite number of possibilities exists, and you know it, but you have no repeatable experimental test of it. What are its other properties? I don't know what the physical properties of the spirit are. About all I do know is that if I encountered the spirit of someone I had known while they were alive in mortality, I would recognize that person. Irrational. Are Christian Scientists who refuse proven medical treatment for their child's chronic illness behaving rationally? They think so. Personally, I believe that God approves of doctors, and indeed has made it possible for some wo/men to become doctors and to learn how to care for the bodies we have while in this stage of our lives. Yes or no question, but apparently you are afraid of the answer? I guess it is tough for one irrational person to say that another person is irrational. Shame. Do miracles (i.e., phenomena that cannot be explained scientifically) occur? Sometimes, with the caveat that science does not claim to be able to explain everything at the current time. Your caveat doesn't answer the question, because it didn't say are currently explainable scientifically. It said cannot be explained scientifically. Let me make it more clear, since you are obviously trying to wiggle out of it. will never be able to be explained scientifically Did God disapprove of Galileo? IMO, no. So it was irrational
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:40:41 -0500 At 10:32 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:49 -0500 At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: lots of snippage throughout Is there more than one God? What happens when two omnipotent Gods want two different things? If there is more than one being who holds the office of God, why wouldn't they cooperate rather than compete? IMO, your answer doesn't really answer the question though. If the God of the Assyrians says that every Babylonian should be killed, and the God of the Babylonians says every Assyrian should be killed, who's right? It's all well and good to say why wouldn't they cooperate, but that doesn't always happen. Tonight, on WWF Smackdown My point is that there is no separate God of the Assyrians and God of the Babylonians, therefore that question is meaningless. OK, well, you snipped my Cow Paradox question, so I'm re-pasting it: ~ To take it one step further, here's a good example with regards to food. Let's call it the Cow Paradox. Hindus say their God(s) say that cows are sacred and should never be eaten. Jews say their God say that cows are not sacred and can be eaten at any time except on fast days as long as they are killed in a specified manner. Catholics believe that their God says that cows can be eaten any time except Lent, no matter how they are killed. Which God is correct, and which are smoking cow patties? These are contradictory statements. They cannot be waved away with the comment 'they're all correct' because that's an illogical conclusion based on the available evidence. Either cows are sacred or they are not. ~ You didn't answer this question, and I don't understand how it's 'meaningless.' How is it possible for three omnipotent Gods to give conflicting answers? Which one is correct and why? If you'd prefer (as you seem to) to translate this as *one* God giving multiple conflicting messages, then which message is correct and why? The messages contradict each other, so how do you decide which one is right or wrong? I'm not attempting to bust your balls here... I'm just trying to understand your thinking. Which part(s) of the Bible are fundamental teachings of God and which (if any) are just stories? I suspect that there are some parts which qualify as both, as Jesus often used parables to teach important truths when He was preaching while He was here in mortality. So are the Bible Literalists, the Baptist sects of Christianity, wrong in your opinion? Given that there are passages in the KJV which contradict other passages in the KJV, not to mention portions of one version of the Bible which do not agree with another version, and that Bible Literalists believe that when Genesis says that the Earth was created in six days that means six days of twenty-four hours each, each hour consisting of 3600 seconds, and each second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10^9) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom, or, alternatively, the time required for an electromagnetic field to propagate 299,792,458 meters (2.99792458 x 10^8 m) through a vacuum, which either contradicts the scientific evidence or requires ridiculous gyrations to attempt to make it fit, yes, they are wrong. (IMO.) So wait a minute. If it is all subject to interpretation then how do we know what's real? (I sense a pending conversation about existentialism.) Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Thank you, but I've never found any problem with voicing my views. If I get ostracized, it is more usually by fundamentalist Christians/Bible literalists who disagree with my religious views. OK, but I may post anyway, cuz it wasn't for you, per se. I would post it because I'd think it might add to our
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going with his question. Am I right? Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these questions because they don't have a rational answer. Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Here is my explanation. Science is by far the best tool humans have developed for testing knowledge. And it is quite necessary since humans have a great ability to fool themselves when they don't test their knowledge in a disciplined manner. Naturally, people with scientific training are better and testing knowledge in a disciplined manner. Therefore, the dramatic difference is easily explainable by saying that there is most likely no personal god and no afterlife, because most scientists see no empirical verification of such phenomena. In other words, the error rate of accepting erroneous knowledge as correct is much lower in the scientist population than in the general population. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge. Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical tests, it is all absurd. What empirical tests have you performed to check if your belief is correct? Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained. If you have a more specific question, then ask away. But before you ask, you should know that I do NOT believe there is no god, nor do I believe there is a god. I do not have any beliefs regarding the matter, because they are not necessary to explain the world I see. If I ever see a verifiable, repeatable experiment for god, then I will accept that there is a god and work on reorganizing my conception of science. Until then, there is no need. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:14:23 -0400 On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge. Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical tests, it is all absurd. What empirical tests have you performed to check if your belief is correct? Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained. If you have a more specific question, then ask away. But before you ask, you should know that I do NOT believe there is no god, nor do I believe there is a god. I do not have any beliefs regarding the matter, because they are not necessary to explain the world I see. If I ever see a verifiable, repeatable experiment for god, then I will accept that there is a god and work on reorganizing my conception of science. Until then, there is no need. Very paraphrased: Dr. Brin on Art Bell a while back: All the Messiah would have to do is something spectacular, like level a mountain range, and people would flock to him. I would! Until then, many people are going to have doubts. Jon _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do wonder, at some point will the credibility of these people just evaporate? I mean, will people say, gee, the people of Iraq _did_ celebrate when we arrived, Saddam _was_ defeated fairly easily, the country _didn't_ collapse into civil war, the museum _wasn't_ looted, and so on - at some point will the media say (as the public already has) that empirical reality and these people's beliefs are, let's be kind, orthogonal? I have no problem admitting all of that. Will the Bush administration ever admit that they cannot find the WMD they swore up and down they knew exactly where they were? Tom Beck You know, Tom, given your previous record on predictions in Iraq, do you think you might want to be a little more careful with statements like the above? Just a thought. I mean, if we do find them - and I still think the odds are pretty good that we will - what will you hate Bush foreign policy for then? Gautam = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Fake Meat From a Vat
Jan Coffey wrote: Are there not Chicken Vats in one of the GC novels? I know they had them in the Rocheworld novels, written by Robert L. Forward and various family members. Available meats included Pate LaBelle (the goose-liver vat's nickname), the Blue Oyster Culture, Chicken Little, etc. :-) __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
You know, Tom, given your previous record on predictions in Iraq, do you think you might want to be a little more careful with statements like the above? Just a thought. I mean, if we do find them - and I still think the odds are pretty good that we will - what will you hate Bush foreign policy for then? You mean, you HOPE we will find them. I don't care either way. I'm glad Saddam is gone, and I didn't object to getting rid of him. On the other hand, we were obviously not prepared for what comes next, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. And if we DON'T find WMD - if it turns out they really did cook the intelligence - then what? If they fooled themselves - if they sincerely believed what turns out to be very thin evidence - that does not bode all that well for the future, you know. And if they fooled us - if they knew the evidence was thin but deliberately overstated the case as a pretext for an invasion - that doesn't bode very well either. I know this won't convince any of the huffing-and-puffing Mighty America true believers who dream of an Imperial USA bossing around the rest of the world (for its own good), but the argument that, even if we never find WMD - even if the Bushies really did know beforehand there weren't any - it's okay because we got rid of the big meanie Saddam (with no real preparation for what would replace him) - I don't buy that. If that's truly the reason we invaded - WHY NOT TELL THE TRUTH? Why lie about the WMD? I'm glad Saddam is gone. I've never said otherwise. I'm glad the war itself went smoothly, although the post-war is starting to turn very very nasty. But at what point do you admit there aren't any WMD? You see, Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Powell/Wolfowitz/Perle/etc. said before the invasion that they knew exactly where the WMD were and it was basically a matter of conquering the country and opening up the storage sites to prove to the world. So where are they? Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the Smithsonian lost 33 major items and over 3,000 minor items, you better believe it'd be called the heist of the century. -j- OK, so I guess we can make the people of Iraq a deal - we can find their lost stuff, plus, just as an extra special bonus, we'll bury their children alive in mass graves. Do you think they'd take that deal? Because by God you talk like you think they would. Gautam = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You mean, you HOPE we will find them. I don't care either way. I'm glad Saddam is gone, and I didn't object to getting rid of him. On the other hand, we were obviously not prepared for what comes next, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. Really? My information - which has done pretty well so far, hasn't it - says that we were well prepared. Things aren't great in Baghdad, but, to be blunt, only someone like you could think that we would go in and magically all these Ba'athists and Sunnis who had been benefiting from the regime would be so happy to see it gone. And if we DON'T find WMD - if it turns out they really did cook the intelligence - then what? If they fooled themselves - if they sincerely believed what turns out to be very thin evidence - that does not bode all that well for the future, you know. And if they fooled us - if they knew the evidence was thin but deliberately overstated the case as a pretext for an invasion - that doesn't bode very well either. So, Tom, all the statements by President Clinton about WMD, were those lies as well? And lots of other people, for that matter: [W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed. -- Madeline Albright, 1998 The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs. -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. -- Bill Clinton in 1998 In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out. -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. -- Tom Daschle in 1998 I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction. -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. -- Al Gore, 2002 We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. -- Bob Graham, December 2002 We have known for many years that Saddam
RE: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
-Original Message- From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:32 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth --- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the Smithsonian lost 33 major items and over 3,000 minor items, you better believe it'd be called the heist of the century. -j- OK, so I guess we can make the people of Iraq a deal - we can find their lost stuff, plus, just as an extra special bonus, we'll bury their children alive in mass graves. I don't understand a word of that :) Do you think they'd take that deal? Because by God you talk like you think they would. I'm merely pointing out the lack of perspective in saying that the loss of only 33 major artifacts and only 3,000 minor artifacts is nothing to be concerned with. I don't understand how that equates to burying the children of Iraq alive. :) -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:31:41 -0700 (PDT) --- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the Smithsonian lost 33 major items and over 3,000 minor items, you better believe it'd be called the heist of the century. -j- OK, so I guess we can make the people of Iraq a deal - we can find their lost stuff, plus, just as an extra special bonus, we'll bury their children alive in mass graves. Do you think they'd take that deal? Because by God you talk like you think they would. The point he's making is a valid one. He didn't say we shouldn't have liberated Iraq in this thread. When we removed the regime in power we were in charge of law enforcement until a native police force could be reestablished. It is obvious that the museums were inadequately secured and they were our responsibility. We definitely screwed up in allowing the museums to be looted. You know, looting and even rioting could have been easily predicted when we liberated Iraq. Quite honestly, I was surprised the changeover went so smoothly. Jon _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[Off-List] Re: Irrregulars Questions on Macs
Hey Ronn, Although I'm temporarily in NO-MAIL mode I still had this one in my if you ever come across this list. You might check: MacSolitaire 1.6 http://tucows.sympatico.ca/mac/preview/203869.shtml Solitaire Till Dawn X 1.0 http://www2.semicolon.com/STD.html and post it to the list if you think it worthwhile, they don't come with the Macs but the first one is Freeware, the second, Shareware. Cheers! -- Han Tacoma ~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~ - Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brin-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 6:36 AM Subject: Irrregulars Questions on Macs WindowsT comes with solitaire. Do Macs come with solitaire or any other card games? Explanation Later If Anyone Wants One Maru -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam. God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
What empirical tests have you performed to check if your belief is correct? Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained. If you have a more specific question, then ask away. But before you ask, you should know that I do NOT believe there is no god, nor do I believe there is a god. I do not have any beliefs regarding the matter, because they are not necessary to explain the world I see. If I ever see a verifiable, repeatable experiment for god, then I will accept that there is a god and work on reorganizing my conception of science. Until then, there is no need. Erik has the classic agnostic belief, which follow strict rules of logic. I am by no means criticizing this. I believe that his assumptions are very correct, and based in logic. I believe the same, and fully support his position. So why do not others (90% as quoted before) go through the same set of tests to determine that it can't be 'determined'? Why is there such a reliance upon faith? I do not believe that this is linked to a fundamental fear or death, for if it was, most people would follow the dictates of their belief (free of most sin - no one's perfect). There is little in the way of dogma that leads people to believe in God. A belief in God does not require a religion, but I would assert that it does require personal validation (feeling God). For some it is a fundamental belief, validated only through experience. Unfortunately science cannot measure or validate this belief or feeling as being real. Even some scientists, packed with the sharp sword of the scientific method, can still find a place for God. I have a theory (which of course would not meet Erik's stringent standard for what is required to formulate a theory) that genetics plays a strong role in experiencing spirituality. Putting aside what spirituality means, there are fundamental physiologic processes that occur when people feel rapture or feel God. All religions have this one thing in common. All feelings of spirituality has a common element of feeling God or knowing their place in the Universe(there are thousands of ways to express this feeling, which explains the cornucopia of religious dogma to pick and choose from). Most people feel this at one time, some more than others. I can't help but to think that some people (like myself) lack the necessary component to feel God in the same degree and manner. Some people are raised religious, but never gain conviction. Others never have exposure to religion, yet do claim to have felt God and profess a belief and love of God. Why is this? Taking the religious position, one could say that they have not let God in. I believe that for some people (perhaps that 10% of us who are 'godless')they (I) lack something which provides this unshaken belief in so many people. I would assert that most people who do believe in God, know that it is based upon faith, but do have personal validation, despite its illogicalness. They understand the arguments, but can put them aside, because they have personal validation that God exists, and is aware of their existence. Being an objectivist, I have been taught to scoff at the idea, with the clear and simple argument - Where's the Beef!. I struggled with this for many, many years. WHY DO THEY BELIEVE! I personally would like proof, even if it was a personal conviction. Life may have been easier for me as a strong church goer, having faith in the Lord, doing the Lord's work. It did not come, but it did have an interesting effect - It freed me to be critical of God, his believers, and the dogma associated with God. In talking to my parents about this, I came to realize that my freedom from feeling God places me in a position to be unbiased, and by this, I become an intellectual guardian, able to question and challenge those who use religion for evil, as a weapon or as an implement of control. I pay a price in this, but it is _undenialable _that I contribute to the health of religion, by being its intellectual guardian - to question bad religion, bad beliefs, bad science, bad memes. Some say that religion will die. I'm suggesting that religion will mature and grow stronger as science progresses. Science has and will break down the toxic memes of religion, and will influence the culture of religion to enhance the survivialability of humanity. Call it the God or Spirituality Gene. Some of us don't understand what it means to believe in God. Evolution may have made us that way. But Gaia may a role for Atheists and Agnostics - it's to make religion better for the common man. I believe I was born to do the job. For all of you who believe, I think you owe me your thanks for defending the Lord's work. Chad Cooper -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going with his question. Am I right? Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these questions because they don't have a rational answer. Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Here is my explanation. Science is by far the best tool humans have developed for testing knowledge. Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to scientific testing as no more real than God? I've noticed that most folks who claim they do end up doing a lot of arm waving to explain why things that have no scientific basis really do because they really really believe in them. I'm not saying that you act this way; you've pleasantly surprised me a few times in the past. But, if not, we can explore how much is really verified by experiment. Dan M. P.S. I can give a long answer to your 20 questions if you really want that; but it involves how I differ with some of the premises that underlie the question...and would take a while to write clearly. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:14, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge.Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical tests, it is all absurd. What empirical tests have you performed to check if your belief is correct? Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained. If you have a more specific question, then ask away. But before you ask, you should know that I do NOT believe there is no god, nor do I believe there is a god. I do not have any beliefs regarding the matter, because they are not necessary to explain the world I see. If I ever see a verifiable, repeatable experiment for god, then I will accept that there is a god and work on reorganizing my conception of science. Until then, there is no need. have you read _The Blind Watchmaker_ ? Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 11 Jun 2003 at 11:40, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Given that there are passages in the KJV which contradict other passages in the KJV, not to mention portions of one version of the Bible which do not agree with another version, and that Bible Literalists believe that when Genesis says that the Earth was created in six days that means six days of twenty-four hours each, each hour consisting of 3600 seconds, and each second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10^9) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom, or, alternatively, the time required for an electromagnetic field to propagate 299,792,458 meters (2.99792458 x 10^8 m) through a vacuum, which either contradicts the scientific evidence or requires ridiculous gyrations to attempt to make it fit, yes, they are wrong. (IMO.) _Genesis and the Big Bang_ is a good book. Essentially, the length of a time unit on Earth depends on your observation point. Hence, it's erronoius to say that 6 days from one viewpoint couldn't be a very long time indeed for the Earth. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:10, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going with his question. Am I right? Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these questions because they don't have a rational answer. Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Here is my explanation. Science is by far the best tool humans have developed for testing knowledge. And it is quite necessary since humans have a great ability to fool themselves when they don't test their knowledge in a disciplined manner. Naturally, people with scientific training are better and testing knowledge in a disciplined manner. Therefore, the dramatic difference is easily explainable by saying that there is most likely no personal god and no afterlife, because most scientists see no empirical verification of such phenomena. In other words, the error rate of accepting erroneous knowledge as correct is much lower in the scientist population than in the general population. I'd point out a few things- I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my religious beliefs one bit. This moves into the SECOND point, that Christianity likes to try to stuff the Genie back in the bottle, while Judaism takes a look at the Genie and sees where it fits. Example - Christian: Cloning is wrong Jewish: A clone would be a Human being like any other (that's the majority view, anyway). Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
My wager, was Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 03:04 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: Is there life after death? Based on what I know, I believe so. (Besides, there's always Pascal's wager to consider.) My wager is that it is best to not believe in any of this religious stuff because even if it turns out I was wrong, and Zoop the Spider-Goddess rules the Universe[1] and sentences me to eternity scrubbing the larvae-pits for my lack of faith, *at least I got a whole lifetime free of this nonsense first*. [1] I'm not singling out you Zoopites, just an example :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:07 PM 6/9/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: The majority of religious people are irrational. So are the majority of real numbers . . . Ah, but all transcendental numbers are irrational. Make of that what you will. :) Julia who has a book about pi and another book about e ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think they'd take that deal? Because by God you talk like you think they would. I'm merely pointing out the lack of perspective in saying that the loss of only 33 major artifacts and only 3,000 minor artifacts is nothing to be concerned with. I don't understand how that equates to burying the children of Iraq alive. :) -j- Because that's where they were a little while ago. We just dug up a mass grave with hundreds of children in it, _buried alive_ by the Hussein regime. I'm not making this stuff up. Now, I don't happen to believe that most of the losses at the Museum had _anything_ to do with the invasion. The Ba'ath regime had been plundering that country for a generation. They appointed Ba'ath party flunkies to run the museum. Why anyone was foolish enough to think that they were telling the truth - that the museum had been looted after the invasion - completely escapes me. But let's suppose it was. Let's suppose that the invasion was the trigger for looting the museum. So what? I mean, really, so what? Given the two alternatives, which one was preferable? Now we know that the museum _wasn't_ plundered. Despite the hysterical claims of many people - no few of them on this list - at most, a small amount of its collection was stolen. Something which, may I point out, I said was probably the case _as soon as reports of the thefts came out_. Compared to what the invasion stopped, so what? The only reason this is an issue at all is that people were so desperate to believe bad things of Americans in general and Bush in particular that they credulously grabbed onto this story as something they could use to diminish an astonishing achievement. Now, even that has been taken away, and what we're seeing is the remarkable extent to which the war's opponents were practicing nothing more nor less than the politics of bad faith - defending a tyrant simply for their own spite and domestic political battles. So I return to my question about credibility. All the people who talked about the looting of the Museum as a cultural catastrophe akin to destroying the Louvre or the Smithsonian or what have you - given their dismal record, when do we stop listening to them entirely? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point he's making is a valid one. He didn't say we shouldn't have liberated Iraq in this thread. When we removed the regime in power we were in charge of law enforcement until a native police force could be reestablished. It is obvious that the museums were inadequately secured and they were our responsibility. We definitely screwed up in allowing the museums to be looted. If they had been looted, we would have screwed up, maybe. I don't know what constraints we were operating under. But they weren't looted. _At most_ a miniscule proportion of the Museum's items were taken, certainly by insiders, and almost certainly before American soldiers ever arrived in Baghdad. What could we possibly have done to stop that? You know, looting and even rioting could have been easily predicted when we liberated Iraq. Quite honestly, I was surprised the changeover went so smoothly. Jon Me too - well, not surprised, per se, but impressed and pleased. But the Administration's opponents have seized on this damn Museum issue as a way of, first attacking the war in general, and second, attacking the reconstruction effort, when it is, in fact, going much better than a fair observer would have expected. So I'm not ashamed to take a special pleasure in pointing out that the Museum thing _didn't happen_ - it was a myth created by credulous people eager to believe the worst of the United States and the Bush Administration, and its revelation as a myth is something that should further lessen their credibility, if there was any left. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Recall: Switching to NO-MAIL
Chad Cooper would like to recall the message, Switching to NO-MAIL. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Switching to NO-MAIL
I'm kind of amazed, though, that I can do this, using wireless, at all. Now I will scroll and proofread the left-hand part of this message... By coincidence, I was just asked by a customer whether or not one can run a Citrix session through a Citrix session (a Citrix window in a Citrix window) . I don't know... but it reminded me of the Matrix disussions. Nerd From Hell BTW... I will kid you about the miracle you just performed with SSH (I know what you meant). Guess you have green screen fever... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Switching to NO-MAIL
-Original Message- From: Chad Cooper Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:19 PM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Switching to NO-MAIL I'm kind of amazed, though, that I can do this, using wireless, at all. Now I will scroll and proofread the left-hand part of this message... By coincidence, I was just asked by a customer whether or not one can run a Citrix session through a Citrix session (a Citrix window in a Citrix window) . I don't know... but it reminded me of the Matrix disussions. Nerd From Hell BTW... I will kid you about the miracle you just performed with SSH (I know what you meant). Guess you have green screen fever... Rather facinating watching the recall process work under Microsoft Exchange.. FYI... it does not work. I am such a dope. I had thought you meant SSL, before I realised that SSH was, in fact, capable of doing exactly what you said it did. I guess the joke is on me, despite it's sad and pathetic punchline. I think I need to repeat a lesson from Erik! Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I have a theory (which of course would not meet Erik's stringent standard for what is required to formulate a theory) that genetics plays a strong role in experiencing spirituality. sniplet All religions have this one thing in common. All feelings of spirituality has a common element of feeling God or knowing their place in the Universe sniplet Most people feel this at one time, some more than others. I can't help but to think that some people (like myself) lack the necessary component to feel God in the same degree and manner. Some people are raised religious, but never gain conviction. Others never have exposure to religion, yet do claim to have felt God and profess a belief and love of God. If genetics does play a role (intriguing yet disturbing thought, and dovetails with the notion of 'a brain hard-wired for spirituality'), what is the evolutionary survival value to such an experience? Does it help bind a small family group/tribe together in an improved-reproductive-success way, by promoting a sense of connectedness? Does it help the individual sacrifice ers life for the good of the tribe by giving a sense of continuance despite an obviously fatal scenario? Why is this? Taking the religious position, one could say that they have not let God in. I believe that for some people (perhaps that 10% of us who are 'godless')they (I) lack something which provides this unshaken belief in so many people. I would assert that most people who do believe in God, know that it is based upon faith, but do have personal validation, despite its illogicalness. sniplet Being an objectivist, I have been taught to scoff at the idea, with the clear and simple argument - Where's the Beef!. I struggled with this for many, many years. WHY DO THEY BELIEVE! Asking the question from a more tolerant religious perspective, if Faith is a Gift or Grace bestowed by God for the 'poor sinner' to be capable of belief, then how can an individual be blamed for lack of Faith? This is a question I, a believer who has felt that oneness with the Universe, have wrestled with, as it makes Belief impossible without Divine Intervention...and what sin have those who *cannot* feel Faith have committed to merit such isolation from God? How is that at all fair or merciful? It isn't, of course - in fact, it fits one non-literalist definitions of hell. I personally would like proof, even if it was a personal conviction. Life may have been easier for me as a strong church goer, having faith in the Lord, doing the Lord's work. It did not come, but it did have an interesting effect - It freed me to be critical of God, his believers, and the dogma associated with God. In talking to my parents about this, I came to realize that my freedom from feeling God places me in a position to be unbiased, and by this, I become an intellectual guardian, able to question and challenge those who use religion for evil, as a weapon or as an implement of control. I pay a price in this, but it is _undenialable _that I contribute to the health of religion, by being its intellectual guardian - to question bad religion, bad beliefs, bad science, bad memes. Some say that religion will die. I'm suggesting that religion will mature and grow stronger as science progresses. Science has and will break down the toxic memes of religion, and will influence the culture of religion to enhance the survivialability of humanity. A built-in check and balance? A reasonable notion, IMO. Call it the God or Spirituality Gene. Some of us don't understand what it means to believe in God. Evolution may have made us that way. But Gaia may a role for Atheists and Agnostics - it's to make religion better for the common man. I believe I was born to do the job. For all of you who believe, I think you owe me your thanks for defending the Lord's work. Intriguing. Thank you. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
An interesting essay, Gautam, but still doesn't explain how my pointing out that the missing artifacts are in fact one of the biggest losses in museum history (outside outright descrution) is somehow equated with burying children alive, as you claim I want to have happen: OK, so I guess we can make the people of Iraq a deal - we can find their lost stuff, plus, just as an extra special bonus, we'll bury their children alive in mass graves. Do you think they'd take that deal? Because by God you talk like you think they would. -j- -Original Message- From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:30 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth --- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think they'd take that deal? Because by God you talk like you think they would. I'm merely pointing out the lack of perspective in saying that the loss of only 33 major artifacts and only 3,000 minor artifacts is nothing to be concerned with. I don't understand how that equates to burying the children of Iraq alive. :) -j- Because that's where they were a little while ago. We just dug up a mass grave with hundreds of children in it, _buried alive_ by the Hussein regime. I'm not making this stuff up. Now, I don't happen to believe that most of the losses at the Museum had _anything_ to do with the invasion. The Ba'ath regime had been plundering that country for a generation. They appointed Ba'ath party flunkies to run the museum. Why anyone was foolish enough to think that they were telling the truth - that the museum had been looted after the invasion - completely escapes me. But let's suppose it was. Let's suppose that the invasion was the trigger for looting the museum. So what? I mean, really, so what? Given the two alternatives, which one was preferable? Now we know that the museum _wasn't_ plundered. Despite the hysterical claims of many people - no few of them on this list - at most, a small amount of its collection was stolen. Something which, may I point out, I said was probably the case _as soon as reports of the thefts came out_. Compared to what the invasion stopped, so what? The only reason this is an issue at all is that people were so desperate to believe bad things of Americans in general and Bush in particular that they credulously grabbed onto this story as something they could use to diminish an astonishing achievement. Now, even that has been taken away, and what we're seeing is the remarkable extent to which the war's opponents were practicing nothing more nor less than the politics of bad faith - defending a tyrant simply for their own spite and domestic political battles. So I return to my question about credibility. All the people who talked about the looting of the Museum as a cultural catastrophe akin to destroying the Louvre or the Smithsonian or what have you - given their dismal record, when do we stop listening to them entirely? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Red Mars to air on SCI FI
Is the DVD the whole ten hours as it was originally broadcast, or the repeat broadcast where they cut out a couple of hours, including some of the best stuff? -- Ronn! :) It is the complete broadcast. There were two versions of the DVD, a two disk set and a three disk set. I think the two disk set had some of the movie cut, but our three disk set is all 10 hours. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
Debbi wrote: Why some people think they have to have exotic animals as pets is beyond me... Why? If you buy into the idea that keeping pets at all is ok, then what does it matter whether it's a cat or a prairie dog or a horse or a degu? If you buy pets, you probably buy them based on how cute you think they are, how prepared you are to properly care for them, and how much they seem to match your personality. For some, that might be a goldfish. For others, it might be a hedgehog. If you accept the idea of pets, then who's to say what's too exotic to be a pet (other than for safety reasons with large or very dangerous animals like lions or pythons where they might pose threat to public safety if they get loose)? Reggie Bautista Really Curious Maru _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Annoying movie writers (was: Picking apart the Matrix - spoilers)
Matt wrote: My favorite is the real-time satellite surveilance of the action where somehow the camera angle appears to be from a building across the street, instead of directly above. The angle wouldn't necessarily have to be directly above, surveilance satellites can usually see a range of angles from what I understand. But it would have to be coming from above from some angle, not from directly across the street, as you note. Reggie Bautista _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Red Mars to air on SCI FI
George wrote: Riverworld: After reading comments on the list, I wasn't too hopeful. However, I was pleasantly surprised. The basics of To Your Scattered Bodies Go and The Fabulous Riverboat were there. While the movie was rather predictable, I enjoyed watching it. It screams sequel or series. I've never read any of the Riverworld novels, and I thought the movie was ok. It was a little predictable in spots, and some things just seemed a bit convenient, but overall I enjoyed it and found it very intriguing. It really made me want to read the novels (which I'll probably get to sometime in the next 2 or 3 years :-) . Reggie Bautista So Many Books, So Little Time Maru _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
Reggie Bautista wrote: Why? If you buy into the idea that keeping pets at all is ok, then what does it matter whether it's a cat or a prairie dog or a horse or a degu? I think the difference is whether or not the animal is suited to the environment and vice versa. These african animals are bringing all sorts of unknown variables into the mix. Many people would regard my dragons as exotic pets, but they are native to my area. They have been interacting with humans (at a more primitive level) for about 40,000 years. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Choose ! RE: My wager, was Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, wasRe : Plonkworthy?
Chad Cooper wrote: From Alien IQ by Clifford Pickover. Consider two universes. Universe Omega is a universe in which God does not exist, but the inhabitants of the Universe believe God exists, Universe Upsilon is a universe in which God does exist, but no inhabitants believes God exists. In which Universe do you prefer to live? In which Universe do you think most people would prefer to live? Wouldn't you have to define whether or not said God actively practices divine intervention? To me, that makes all the difference to the choice. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: media stratagy meetings: was RE: Mobile labs identified asUK-made weather balloon systems
Top-post short version: different definitions, different interpretations - misunderstandings. OK, we're cool, even if we're not on the same page. :) Looong version: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Deborah Harrell wrote: lots and lots of snippage! I see, you did the same thing I did, only we seem to disagree to some extentYou made assumptions and followed implications, I did not. I am of the opinion that you got your take from some such review. Incorrect. I did not hear this address, I only read the textPlease do not do me the disservice of saying that I cannot read a text and come to my own conclusions. I was only offering you a possible explination for why our take on the address is so differnt. Inadvertently I may have allso ininsuated that you are an idiot. (later in the message) LOL Reading and posting while tired can be *sooo* instructive... Please check your baggage at the door. Please do not take my response as a personal attack. It is not intended as that Don't get me wrong, he is spining, but he is not saying the words you are puting in his mouth Implications are part of the design and aim of a good speechwriter. Innuendo is not truth or reason; it contributes nothing to rational choice. All true, but in todays atmosphere and polotics you can not blame someone for allowing you to read such implications as fact or statement. Innuendo is definaly not truth or reason, but unfortunatly with the way things are it is your job to filter that out, not thiers. Have to disagree here. As I stated before, I accept spin in most political situations, but in matters of national security or life-and-death the truth (or as much of it as can be safely disclosed) promotes better decision-making by all involved. What about the inpracticality of...Sitting on Sadam's doorstep in a seig for another 12 years... UNSC involvement would have spread the costs, Why? It never has beofore. Well, like in Afghanistan there are other countries' soldiers working as peacekeepers or whatever - those countries are paying for their involvement, so the US doesn't have to carry the entire burden. and probably shortened 'time to invasion' significantly. You yourslef admited that France was going to play anti-us no matter the cost. They signed the resolution stating that the slightest violation meant serious consequences. Even in french that doesn't mean, wast US tax dollers and US citizen soldure time (away from their jobs) to sit and babysit Sadam. But that does appear to be exactly what they wanted. I think that the one vote to veto in the UNSC has got to go; maybe require 2/3 majority to pass? All the soldiers in the world cannot protect an open society from determined and trained men willing to kill themselves. But they can keep them from getting the money to buy the material to make the bombs they kill mass amounts of people with. I don't think so, but I wish it were. :( Their were pictures found in seveal places in Iraq depicting an Iraqi Air plane flying into WTC. But he never said AQ he said terrorists. Again, implication and innuendo. And Rumsfeld did more re: Iraq ?-? 9-11. dry I think there are old pix of Saddam socializing with members of the current administration...innuendo? No, we supported Sadam agains Iran. What is your point? Mmm, badly made. I've heard madly-spun rumors that certain members of this Admin set-up and planned a take-over of Iraq years and years ago; such spinners might point to those pictures as - suggestive. wry I should be less cryptic in the future. by saying weapons of mass death instead of weapons of mass destruction -- Very carefully and cleverly crafted wording. Absolutly! Skillfuly done... Just becouse you do what has to be done and play the spin better than your apponents doesn't make what you did wrong, and it doesn't make your spin wrong either. So it's just a *game?* I am NO WORD SMITH so don't read some sillyness into my statments please. You DO know what I mean. I am NOT spinning at all, so please don't let's start. Ah, no, not *you*: it seems to me that some of the 'movers and shakers' in government, elected and appointed, ARE treating foreign policy as a game. But the pawns are real people. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that *you* were thinking of this situation as a game. That does not make my decisions informed. No, but that is the way things are. It is your duty to get yourself informed and to usnertand all the implications etc. Your job to sift through the spin Statment of fact just requirs comprehension. If you don't want inuendo from your leaders, then don't do your part to make the inuendo effective. See my above statement re: matters
Re: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:35:34PM -0700, Miller, Jeffrey wrote: An interesting essay, Gautam, but still doesn't explain how my pointing out that the missing artifacts are in fact one of the biggest losses in museum history (outside outright descrution) is somehow equated with burying children alive, as you claim I want to have happen: OK, so I guess we can make the people of Iraq a deal - we can find their lost stuff, plus, just as an extra special bonus, we'll bury their children alive in mass graves. Do you think they'd take that deal? Because by God you talk like you think they would. I believe he is operating under a false dichotomy: Gautam implies there can only be 2 possibilities: either a tyrant in charge of Iraq and the museum safe but children being killed, or the tyrant deposed/children no longer being killed and the museum not guarded well enough to prevent some major thefts. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my religious beliefs one bit. Yes, many of the ~40% I have met are like that. Those I have discussed it with seem to keep their mind compartmentalized, with the rational/scientific part in charge most of the time, but they keep the irrational/religious part going in parallel, although usually not in dominance. In several of the cases, it seems likely this behavior was due to religious brainwashing when they were young and impressionable, and they never quite manage to expunge it, so it just gets pushed into a corner. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 11 Jun 2003 at 19:04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: have you read _The Blind Watchmaker_ ? No, but I have heard a few things about it. If you want to make a reference to it, go ahead, there is a chance it won't go over my head. Okay, I was essentially refering to the Blind Watchmaker theory - a Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet like ours, and us coming along...is SO unlikely, that is it unlikely it was random chance. Some phycisists I know say it's why they believe in a creator, even if not a God as most religions would consider it. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
I wrote: Why? If you buy into the idea that keeping pets at all is ok, then what does it matter whether it's a cat or a prairie dog or a horse or a degu? Russell replied: I think the difference is whether or not the animal is suited to the environment and vice versa. These african animals are bringing all sorts of unknown variables into the mix. Many people would regard my dragons as exotic pets, but they are native to my area. They have been interacting with humans (at a more primitive level) for about 40,000 years. But housecats aren't native to North America. Neither are horses, which were originally introduced by the Spanish. Neither are hamsters. So why should I be able to get a hamster, which is native to Syria, but not a prairie dog, which is native to the midwest United States? All of the animals I listed above are suited to the environment here in Kansas City, especially when a hamster or cat or prairie dog or degu is kept as an indoor pet. So why is a having a degu as a pet (or preferrably a pair of degus, they tend to be happier that way) different from having a pet cat or two? Reggie Bautista _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to scientific testing as no more real than God? You are really cheating. You should at least answer that one question I asked before you get to ask me another one. But I'll give you a free one. I think that any knowledge that can never be tested by experiment is a poor and useless sort of knowledge, if knowledge it is at all. I guess I know where you are going with this, and if I'm right, I'd like to remind you about a discussion we had some time ago (years?) where I mentioned that most of my morals are based on what I think is the best way of advancing toward a Banks' Culture level of human development. And while that is not easily tested by experiment (I have only limited control over the ongoing experiment and as of now I can only run one experiment), it IS possible to test it experimentally. It just takes a very long time, and repeating it would be even more difficult. P.S. I can give a long answer to your 20 questions if you really want that; but it involves how I differ with some of the premises that underlie the question...and would take a while to write clearly. Why don't we start at the one you just replied to (but did not answer) and go from there. I'm not sure if we'll get anywhere, however. You don't really consider yourself to be a typical religious person, do you? I think that you are exceptionally rational and scientific and skeptical most of the time, but it makes me uncomfortable sometimes to see the contortions you put your mind through to keep the religious/irrational part of your mind compartmentalized but alive. Naturally you would disagree with this, and we aren't likely to get anywhere on that subject, and I fear your detailed answers would keep leading back to this. And my point in asking the questions was that most, not all, religious people were quite irrational, and since you aren't a typical case, it hardly seems worthwhile. But if you think it would be productive, go ahead. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:10:46AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: Okay, I was essentially refering to the Blind Watchmaker theory - a Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet like ours, and us coming along...is SO unlikely, that is it unlikely it was random chance. Does Dawkins make this argument in the book? It doesn't sound like him. Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error, Richard Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said something like: The most amazing thing happened to me on the way to lecture. I passed a car and the license plate was WZ3726!!! Can you imagine? Out of all the millions of permutations, I saw that particular one! The odds are incredible! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: media stratagy meetings: was RE: Mobile labs identified asUK-made weather balloon systems
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Top-post short version: different definitions, different interpretations - misunderstandings. OK, we're cool, even if we're not on the same page. :) I am not going to reiterate myself by responding to the rest of the post becouse you already know what I would say :) It is refreshing Deborah that you and I were able to find our true point of difference without becomeing intolerant with eachother. Esentialy we seem to agree on the facts and how things have played out. What we disagree on was the appropriatness of the actions that were taken concerning spin. As such I would like to continto focus more closely on this part, if you don't mind. What I find amazing is that I am allways on the other side of this dicotomy when it comes to person-to-person communication. At times I wish people would just get the Gist of what I other mean and not pick apart the details which are often due to misspeaking. It's not allways that one don't know, sometimes one might just pull out the wrong words. At the same time, I hold no negative assment of Bush et. al. for spinning as I see spinning a requirment to communicate with and perswade the American public. The emergent properties of this appears controdictory. Listen to what I mean not what I say Listen to what I say not what it sounds like I mean. The key to the differnece is in the use of logic and recognizing mistakes rather than recognizing spin. Deborah I am interested in your take on person to person comunication, what you think would have been the most appropriate action taken by Bush et. al., and how the spin doctors from their oposition could have been delt with without resorting themselves to any degree of spin/ Jan = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to scientific testing as no more real than God? You are really cheating. You should at least answer that one question I asked before you get to ask me another one. But I'll give you a free one. I think that any knowledge that can never be tested by experiment is a poor and useless sort of knowledge, if knowledge it is at all. I guess I know where you are going with this, and if I'm right, I'd like to remind you about a discussion we had some time ago (years?) where I mentioned that most of my morals are based on what I think is the best way of advancing toward a Banks' Culture level of human development. And while that is not easily tested by experiment (I have only limited control over the ongoing experiment and as of now I can only run one experiment), it IS possible to test it experimentally. It just takes a very long time, and repeating it would be even more difficult. Erick, Do you consider yourself a Positivist? Jan = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debbi wrote: Why some people think they have to have exotic animals as pets is beyond me... Why? If you buy into the idea that keeping pets at all is ok, then what does it matter whether it's a cat or a prairie dog or a horse or a degu? I didn't mean to insult anyone here; I should have said that animals which have been domesticated (dogs, cats, pigs, goats, chickens, koi etc. - and I even count the rat lines that have been bred to be docile and calm around humans) have, in the course of that domestication, been selected for interaction with and response to humans. Many wild characteristics, such as extreme aggression, territoriality, migration etc. have been modified or bred out over the course of multiple generations; those individuals which exhibited undesirable traits were culled, and likely not bred. Domestics can be pets because they are primed to live with us; 'their' nature is now 'ours.' Many seem even to crave human attention. Wild animals, OTOH, do not have this in-bred ability to live and interact with us; their agendas are not modified for our benefit. Far too many exotics end up abandoned, maimed or killed b/c they *cannot* adapt to our demands. Frex, apparently young infants smell rather like baby rabbits, and ferrets - hunters - have attacked and seriously harmed infants. It isn't that the ferret or lion or python is intentionally being bad or mean; it is simply following its nature. An exotic that has been reared by humans still has its instincts, but not the training/experience to survive in the wild; if abandoned, it will most likely starve or otherwise die shortly thereafter. Tropical exotics can carry all sorts of diseases (partially listed in two articles linked to the one I posted), and we just don't know enough about how some pathogens 'jump' from one species to another. I mean, who'd have thought that *prairie dogs* would be susceptible to African *monkeypox*? Furthermore, the demand for young endangered exotics (adults are usually completely unsuitable) leads to the hunting and killing of breeding females (frex clouded leopards, orangutans), further deleting the precious wild genepool; and many of those young also die. If you buy pets, you probably buy them based on how cute you think they are, how prepared you are to properly care for them, This is where many fail, as they do not understand just how profound the differences between a domestic and a wild animal can be, and what proper care entails. Frex, a friend 'inherited' a wolf hybrid from a prior boyfriend; now 'Allie' is a lovely and loving creature, but she has never accepted that small dogs deserve to walk the same earth as herself. Despite socialization attempts, obedience schools, 'personal trainers' and punishment for 8 years, she still lunges after any smaller dog, and if you haven't properly braced yourself to stop 85# of muscle and bone when they hit the end of the leash, the 'pinch' collar won't save that peekapoo. Or the skin of your nose, chin and arms as you are dragged down the path. That is just one of her quirks which has to be dealt with on a daily basis. Zebras are not simply striped horses, but strong and snap-reflexed animals who 'think of' things that startle them as hunting lions -- and if they can't do what they prefer (run away), they are very capable of attacking the perceived threat. Zebras have maimed and even killed adult lionesses. For a handgun thread crossover, there is certainly a 'macho' element for some in owning a large exotic (I don't think that goes for your hedgehogs, however ;} ). and how much they seem to match your personality. For some, that might be a goldfish. For others, it might be a hedgehog. If you accept the idea of pets, then who's to say what's too exotic to be a pet (other than for safety reasons with large or very dangerous animals like lions or pythons where they might pose threat to public safety if they get loose)? There are some wild animals who could probably be domesticated in time (frex several small South American wildcats), and some who are part-way there already (ferrets, mongooses). It's sort of an Uplift question, I suppose... :) Debbi Finished Ranting For The Moment Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 12:49 am, Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:10:46AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: Okay, I was essentially refering to the Blind Watchmaker theory - a Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet like ours, and us coming along...is SO unlikely, that is it unlikely it was random chance. Does Dawkins make this argument in the book? It doesn't sound like him. Actually Dawkins' book is about debunking the 'argument from design'. Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error, Richard Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said something like: The most amazing thing happened to me on the way to lecture. I passed a car and the license plate was WZ3726!!! Can you imagine? Out of all the millions of permutations, I saw that particular one! The odds are incredible! I haven't read 'The Blind Watchmaker' for many years, but that story might be in it... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Choose ! RE: My wager, was Re: Twenty (or so) Questions,wasRe : Plonkworthy?
Chad Cooper wrote: From Alien IQ by Clifford Pickover. Consider two universes. Universe Omega is a universe in which God does not exist, but the inhabitants of the Universe believe God exists, Universe Upsilon is a universe in which God does exist, but no inhabitants believes God exists. In which Universe do you prefer to live? In which Universe do you think most people would prefer to live? Upsilon, I guess. God deserves a chance to exist too. (This is a NICE, FORGIVING God, right? Not Chthulu or somebody?) Got me what most people would prefer. How they answered would strongly depend on how you asked the question. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
Deborah Harrell wrote: Zebras are not simply striped horses, but strong and snap-reflexed animals who 'think of' things that startle them as hunting lions -- and if they can't do what they prefer (run away), they are very capable of attacking the perceived threat. Zebras have maimed and even killed adult lionesses. If they *were* more like horses, they would probably already be domesticated. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Do you consider yourself a Positivist? If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-) Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really know what it means, I'm quite ignorant on a lot of philosophy, in fact, despited my 3 letter designation I can't remember having ever read a philosophy book) [side note: on dictionary.com they had the ad: If you love someone who has Schizophrenia...you're not alone. ] positivist adj : of or relating to positivism; positivist thinkers; positivist doctrine; positive philosophy [syn: positivistic, positive] n : someone who emphasizes observable facts and excludes metaphysical speculation about origins or ultimate causes [syn: rationalist] Tentatively, I'd say yes based on that definition but I'm not really happy with it. I wouldn't describe my thought that way off-hand. I don't like the ambiguity of speculation about origins or ultimate causes. Maybe that is philosophical jargon and actually means something specific, but to me it is a little vauge. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my religious beliefs one bit. Yes, many of the ~40% I have met are like that. Those I have discussed it with seem to keep their mind compartmentalized, with the rational/scientific part in charge most of the time, but they keep the irrational/religious part going in parallel, although usually not in dominance. In several of the cases, it seems likely this behavior was due to religious brainwashing when they were young and impressionable, and they never quite manage to expunge it, so it just gets pushed into a corner. grin So non-condescending of you... serious What about Chad's thought that there might be 'spirituality gene(s)'? I can see how that might have a survival advantage in small, close groups. How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who consider themselves atheist or agnostic (or indifferent) have had such a feeling/sense? Is the sensation of wonder or true awe akin to universal connectedness? What evolutionary purpose does wonder serve? (Anger, fear and love all have clear survival advantages.) Is this related at all to how some people have sensitve music-evoked emotions/states? Or to empathy? Debbi who has had moments of absolute wonder and of profound universal connectedness (no visions, voices or anything hallucinatory); no typical time of day or situation, although more have occurred outdoors than in, began at least by age 5 (Oh, because it almost crosses over into prairie dog thread, I'll relate that one day in kindergarten I was delighted to discover gophers in the schoolyard: how cute, how clever with their quick dartings and the way they watched right back, how marvelous that they *built homes underground,* had families...how akin yet different we were, eying each other under the bright Califoria sun, me crouched on my Charlie Browns,# the gopher headshoulders out of its dark hole.) #saddle oxford shoes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:31:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: grin So non-condescending of you... Arrogance, love it or ...of course you love it in me, who wouldn't! Is the sensation of wonder or true awe akin to universal connectedness? What evolutionary purpose does wonder serve? (Anger, fear and love all have clear survival advantages.) Is this related at all to how some people have sensitve music-evoked emotions/states? Or to empathy? Maybe it is a leftover from childhood. That whole warm-fuzzy feeling of being cradled at Mommy's breast, sucking the magical, all-powerful source of life... -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Is the sensation of wonder or true awe akin to universal connectedness? What evolutionary purpose does wonder serve? (Anger, fear and love all have clear survival advantages.) Is this related at all to how some people have sensitve music-evoked emotions/states? Or to empathy? Maybe it is a leftover from childhood. That whole warm-fuzzy feeling of being cradled at Mommy's breast, sucking the magical, all-powerful source of life... snort How silly of me to ask of you a question concerning emotions... ;) serious But they are a huge part of being human, and are worthy of study. There is a connection between genes and temperament and emotion, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it. I'll see what kind of studies I can find sometime... Happiness Is A Warm Fuzzy Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:45:15PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: snort How silly of me to ask of you a question concerning emotions... ;) sniff Now you've hurt my feelings :-( -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:29 am, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Do you consider yourself a Positivist? If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-) Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really know what it means, I'm quite ignorant on a lot of philosophy, in fact, despited my 3 letter designation I can't remember having ever read a philosophy book) The basic affirmations of Positivism are (1) that all knowledge regarding matters of fact is based on the positive data of experience, and (2) that beyond the realm of fact is that of pure logic and pure mathematics, which were already recognized by the Scottish Empiricist and Skeptic David Hume as concerned with the relations of ideas and, in a later phase of Positivism, were classified as purely formal sciences. On the negative and critical side, the Positivists became noted for their repudiation of metaphysics; i.e., of speculation regarding the nature of reality that radically goes beyond any possible evidence that could either support or refute such transcendent knowledge claims. In its basic ideological posture, Positivism is thus worldly, secular, antitheological, and antimetaphysical. Strict adherence to the testimony of observation and experience is the all-important imperative of the Positivists. The Logical Positivist school differs from earlier empiricists and positivists (David Hume, Ernst Mach) in holding that the ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification rather than upon personal experience. It differs from Auguste Comte and J.S. Mill in holding that metaphysical doctrines are not false but meaningless-that the great unanswerable questions about substance, causality, freedom, and God are unanswerable just because they are not genuine questions at all. This last is a thesis about language, not about nature, and is based upon a general account of meaning and of meaninglessness. Britannica is handy :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:20:03AM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote: I have a theory (which of course would not meet Erik's stringent standard for what is required to formulate a theory) Geez, Chad, I didn't mean to make you so paranoid! I don't have any problem with something stated like that (I have a theory...). No stringent requirements. My problem is when false knowledge is presented authoritatively as FACT (not just a theory). (And I am not implying that your theory is wrong, I actually don't have much opinion on it, although it sounds possible) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
I wrote: And dogs are certainly natural bord hunters. That should be born, not bord. And there is an extraneous apostrophe earlier in the paragraph. I really need sleep :-) Reggie Bautista _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
I saw part of a movie which I have forgotten about except for one thing. An urban apartment dwelling woman had a pet piglet. I kept wondering what she would do when that sucker got big. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Deborah Harrell wrote: Happiness Is A Warm Fuzzy Maru Happiness is a warm fuzzy something, anyway. :-D Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Annoying movie writers (was: Picking apart the Matrix - spoilers)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:23:14PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: The angle wouldn't necessarily have to be directly above, surveilance satellites can usually see a range of angles from what I understand. But Any idea what range? This is an interesting question. I would think that you wouldn't want to go too far off the radius line otherwise you would be looking through more atmosphere and presumably getting more distortion. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:20:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This arguement is beneath you. The specific complaint about looting of the museum has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the war. This is not an either or question. One can rescue Iraqi children and protect antiquites. That is precisely the point. The looting was an instance of poor planning and Rumsfeld's response an example of the callousness of the administration. I think I first learned of this technique while reading Ender's Game. When a politician accomplishes something that most would consider worthwhile, they like to set up a false dichotomy such that the ONLY possible way the good they accomplished could have happened is the exact way they did it, no other way was possible, especially no BETTER way. You start with it worked and put the spin on it from there. The head of the flight school said something along these lines to Ender's teacher. (I might have that backwards) Since I read that years ago, I have frequently noted the technique being used by politicians. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Speaking of zebras Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
Deborah Harrell wrote: Zebras are not simply striped horses, but strong and snap-reflexed animals who 'think of' things that startle them as hunting lions -- and if they can't do what they prefer (run away), they are very capable of attacking the perceived threat. Zebras have maimed and even killed adult lionesses. Speaking of zebras, when I drove by the zebra place on Sunday, I saw 4 zebras, not the usual 3. And one of them was a lot *smaller* than the others. When I drove by on Monday, the little zebra was under one of the others, nursing. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
William T Goodall wrote: On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 12:49 am, Erik Reuter wrote: Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error, Richard Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said something like: The most amazing thing happened to me on the way to lecture. I passed a car and the license plate was WZ3726!!! Can you imagine? Out of all the millions of permutations, I saw that particular one! The odds are incredible! I haven't read 'The Blind Watchmaker' for many years, but that story might be in it... If not, I'm pretty sure it's in _Genius_ by James Gleick. If it's not there, then it must be in _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynmann!_. I read both of those in the past 18 months, and it's in one of them. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of zebras Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:42:41PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Speaking of zebras, when I drove by the zebra place on Sunday, I saw 4 zebras, not the usual 3. And one of them was a lot *smaller* than the others. When I drove by on Monday, the little zebra was under one of the others, nursing. Don't you feel sorry for the mother who had to give birth to that sucker? :-) (pun intended) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Deborah Harrell wrote: How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who consider themselves atheist or agnostic (or indifferent) have had such a feeling/sense? If there is a spirituality gene and some people are lacking, if they feel deprived, might they be more inclined toward drug experiences to achieve such feelings? If so, then something that I heard about recently makes a lot more sense than it did to me at the time I heard it Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of zebras Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:42:41PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Speaking of zebras, when I drove by the zebra place on Sunday, I saw 4 zebras, not the usual 3. And one of them was a lot *smaller* than the others. When I drove by on Monday, the little zebra was under one of the others, nursing. Don't you feel sorry for the mother who had to give birth to that sucker? :-) (pun intended) She couldn't have had it any worse than I did when I had Sammy. I imagine she had it a lot easier, actually. So no, I don't really feel sorry for her. :) It's awfully cute. The mane is longer and thicker on it than the adults' manes are on them. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
What Is Going Right in Iraq
Somewhat surprisingly, Iraq is not without a success story - and indeed, it is in one of the most unlikeliest places: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42008-2003Jun10.html?nav=hpto p_tb ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: media stratagy meetings: was RE: Mobile labs identified asUK-made weather balloon systems
--- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Top-post short version: different definitions, different interpretations - misunderstandings. OK, we're cool, even if we're not on the same page. :) I am not going to reiterate myself by responding to the rest of the post becouse you already know what I would say :) snip big ol' grin That's me, the psychic horse trainer and giver-of-advice. ;) Will answer properly tomorrow - time to head out. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Julia Thompson wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) ... But traditional methods such as fasting, sleep deprivation, frenetic dancing, sensory deprivation, self-flagellation, etc are all O.K.? Unfair! If there is a spirituality gene and some people are lacking, if they feel deprived, might they be more inclined toward drug experiences to achieve such feelings? If so, then something that I heard about recently makes a lot more sense than it did to me at the time I heard it Julia Julia, you're unfair too. Either tell it or not, but don't just mention it and leave it. : ) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraqi Death Toll Tallied, Jobs Program Unveiled
IRAQ: AP Counts 3,200 Civilian Deaths; Blix Says Pentagon Smeared Him UN WIRE http://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/util/display_stories.asp?objid=34206 An independent investigation by the Associated Press has revealed that at least 3,240 civilians died in the recent U.S.-led war in Iraq, 1,900 of them in Baghdad. The results of the investigation, based on records from 60 out of Iraq's 124 hospitals and spanning the period from March 20, when the war started, to April 20, when fighting had died down, were published today. The news agency reports that the count is still fragmentary and that a final tally, if ever computed, would likely be significantly higher (Niko Price, AP/Yahoo! News, June 11). Of the civilian deaths recorded, 1,896 were in Baghdad, 293 were in Najaf, 200 were in Karbala and 145 were in Nasiriya. The tally does not include figures for Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, where hospitals signed 413 death certificates but did not track whether the casualties were civilian or military (AP/Yahoo! News, June 10). Neither the U.S. Department of Defense nor the British Defense Ministry conducted a civilian death count. The civilian death toll in the 1991 Gulf War was 2,278, according to Iraqi government figures. The Pentagon did not tally civilian casualties in that war, either (Price, AP/Yahoo! News). Rumsfeld Warns Security Will Take Time; 30th Soldier Post-War Killed The 30th soldier to die since U.S. President George W. Bush declared the war in Iraq over on May 1 was killed yesterday when unknown assailants fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a weapons collection point in Baghdad, Agence France-Presse reports. Another was injured in the attack. Both were U.S. soldiers. Speaking in Lisbon at the start of a four-day European tour, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said remnants of the Iraqi regime -- the Fedayeen Saddam and Baathists and very likely the special Republican Guard are the ones that are periodically attacking coalition forces, sometimes successfully. Rumsfeld said such attacks would probably not diminish in the next month or two or three. It will take time to root out the remnants of the [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein regime, and we intend to do it, he said (AFP/Yahoo! News, June 11). A military effort, dubbed Operation Peninsula Strike, to end attacks by Hussein loyalists began Monday and continued yesterday as U.S. troops and Iraqi police scoured the Tigris River north of Baghdad in search of paramilitaries blamed for the deaths of 11 U.S. soldiers in the last two weeks. The effort, with tanks, artillery and aircraft, is reportedly the largest military undertaking since the war ended. Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, said Hussein has been seen north of Baghdad and is paying rewards for every U.S. soldier killed. U.S. Defense Department officials said they had no corroborating evidence for Chalabi's claim (Chicago Tribune, June 11). U.N. Chief Inspector Says Pentagon Undermined Him U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission Executive Chairman Hans Blix told the London Guardian yesterday that some elements of the U.S. Defense Department led a smear campaign against him. I have my detractors in Washington, Blix said. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media. Not that I cared very much, he added. It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant. According to the Guardian, Pentagon officials criticized Blix as a bad choice to lead the inspections in Iraq when they were relaunched in November. Part of the campaign against him, Blix said, was a rumor that he was a homosexual. Blix said overall his relationship with Washington was good, but added that towards the end the (Bush) administration leaned on the inspectors to use more damning language in their reports, especially regarding the discovery of cluster bombs and drones in March. Blix said Washington viewed the United Nations as an alien power and that it was his impression that there are people in this [the Bush] administration who say they don't care if the U.N. sinks under the East River, and other crude things. Blix, 74, will retire in three weeks and return to life in Stockholm with his wife, Eva (Helena Smith, London Guardian, June 11). Interim UNMOVIC Chief Named U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has appointed UNMOVIC Deputy Executive Chairman Demetrius Perricos to take over as acting head of the commission July 1, when Blix retires. Perricos was the commission's director of planning and operations for three years prior to his appointment in January to the body's number two post. The Greek native joined the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1972 as a safeguards inspector and led the team that certified the dissolution of South Africa's nuclear weapons program. He also worked in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War (U.N. release, June 10). IRAQ: $100
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
David Hobby wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) ... But traditional methods such as fasting, sleep deprivation, frenetic dancing, sensory deprivation, self-flagellation, etc are all O.K.? Unfair! If there is a spirituality gene and some people are lacking, if they feel deprived, might they be more inclined toward drug experiences to achieve such feelings? If so, then something that I heard about recently makes a lot more sense than it did to me at the time I heard it Julia Julia, you're unfair too. Either tell it or not, but don't just mention it and leave it. : ) I don't want to give too much detail, because I don't want to get anyone in trouble. Prior to a big blow-out thing that was of spiritual significance for at least some of the participants, in the frantic get-ready-for-it someone was asking after a particular pipe so she could get high beforehand. (And she was one of the people for which it had spiritual significance.) I couldn't see the point, myself; sleep dep would do a lot for me, and crowd mood would carry me a ways, as well, if I walked in in the right mindset to let it. (Frentic dancing was also a mood-alterer of choice for a number of people, but sheer fatigue ruled *that* out for me, not to mention that it's not easy to dance frentically when you're obviously pregnant and not used to frentic dancing.) Then again, she'd taken Benadryl or something the previous couple of nights so she was able to sleep through all sorts of crap that I couldn't, so maybe she wasn't suffering the degree of sleep dep I was. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Pictures of the belly
NOTE: I'm not sure that everything on the page is necessarily work-appropriate, and there are other pages in the album that I'm *sure* aren't. Also, please do NOT download anything to pass along or display elsewhere without the permission of the photographer. (I have an e-mail address or two for him if you really want it; I'd also be happier if you got permission of the other people in the photos, and I think I can come up with those, as well.) I'd rate the page PG-13, and the album as a whole at least R. http://tinyurl.com/e3zp First 3 pictures have me in them. These were taken over Memorial Day weekend. I don't think I can fit into that bathing suit anymore. In the first picture, the couple with Dan myself had just gotten married. In the next 2, I'm with a very nice woman who just wanted to touch the belly. :) (She's awfully sweet.) That thing on my head is a light. Much nicer to have the light attached to one's head, leaving one's hands free. And yes, that's a candy necklace around my neck. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debbi wrote: snip But there are lines of many animals commonly called exotics that have been bred for domestication for many generations (their generations, not ours), at least as I understand it. I couldn't find any info on how long guinea pigs have been domesticated, but it's long enough that they have certain sounds that they will only make in the presence of a human. I overlooked guinea pigs. :) And hamsters don't even exist in the wild anymore, do they? My cat loves to lay down on my chest while I'm laying down in bed or on the couch in the livingroom. If she were to do so to a baby human, that baby would probably be unable to breath because it wouldn't have the muscle strength to lift it's chest with the weight of the cat on it. It this case, the cat isn't even being a hunter, it's just showing it's affection for the baby, literally smothering it with love. But cats are still accepted as a normal pet. And I would guess everyone here has heard at least one story about a dog killing, maiming, or otherwise injuring a human, whether infant or adult. And dogs are certainly natural born hunters. Yes, but along the way many dogs (and I'm guessing cats) who attacked humans would be slaughtered. But maybe (from your link below) ferrets have been culled at least somewhat too... Although we have of course accentuated the aggressiveness of some dogs. growls over the memory of being confronted by 3 pit bulls Tropical exotics can carry all sorts of diseases snip By the same token, pathogens can jump between humans and other animals considered normal pets. Yes, but primate-type pathogens seem particularly bad for us hairless apes. Revenge, perhaps? :P I also firmly believe in researching an animal before choosing it as a pet. We have several books now on regular hamsters, dwarf hamsters, and guinea pigs, all of which we currently own, and some books on hedgehogs (we are being given a baby hedgehog as a gift Wow, I didn't know there was such a thing as a dwarf hamster... (I hear some jokes coming) There are some wild animals who could probably be domesticated in time (frex several small South American wildcats), and some who are part-way there already (ferrets, mongooses). I thought ferrets had been domesticated for a long time. Hang on a sec... http://www.ferretcompany.com/content/aboutferrets.html or http://tinyurl.com/e3sl Excerpt: Exactly where and when the first ferret was invited into someone's home is unknown, but early references to ferret-like creatures can be found in the writings of Aristophanes around 500 B.C Domesticated ferrets moved across Europe with the conquering Romans, earning their keep by flushing rabbits from their warrens for expectant hunters. Thanks for the link! I guess I was thinking of the dogs' guesstimated 10K year, and cats' 4 or 5K...but some animals do seem to be suited to companionship. IIRC, this is how it is theorized that dogs first became domesticated, working as hunting partners with humans. But otherwise, point taken. Debbi who as a child dreamed of living on a game preserve in Africa, They're not pet lions, they're *wild* ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of zebras Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Speaking of zebras, when I drove by the zebra place on Sunday, I saw 4 zebras, not the usual 3. And one of them was a lot *smaller* than the others. When I drove by on Monday, the little zebra was under one of the others, nursing. Aww, how cute... Did Sammy get to see it? Congratulations To The Formerly Lone Zebra Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This arguement is beneath you. The specific complaint about looting of the museum has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the war. This is not an either or question. One can rescue Iraqi children and protect antiquites. That is precisely the point. The looting was an instance of poor planning and Rumsfeld's response an example of the callousness of the administration. No, it's not. WHAT DAMN LOOTING 32 pieces. Most (if not all) of them probably stolen before American troops even arrived. The whole looting story was a lie. A contemptible slander made up by Ba'athist thugs and believed by people desperate to deny that - over their opposition - a great and good thing was done. Believed and spread about by people who did everything they could to protect Saddam Hussein, nothing more nor less. What this is is an example of how pathetic - how contemptible and vile - so much of the left has become. Nothing more than that. The only reason anyone is paying attention to this is as a way of attacking the liberation of Iraq. After being shown, time and time again, as credulous fools who would believe anything, anything at all, so long as it showed the United States in a bad light, we see - once again, not for the first, and not for the last time - that even here, people who trumped this up were wrong. They couldn't even scrounge up a _true_ story - they had to believe Ba'athist stooges who were covering their own tracks for inside job thefts. The only part of this argument that is beneath me is the fact that I'm wasting my time on it. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:20:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I first learned of this technique while reading Ender's Game. When a politician accomplishes something that most would consider worthwhile, they like to set up a false dichotomy such that the ONLY possible way the good they accomplished could have happened is the exact way they did it, no other way was possible, especially no BETTER way. You start with it worked and put the spin on it from there. The head of the flight school said something along these lines to Ender's teacher. (I might have that backwards) Since I read that years ago, I have frequently noted the technique being used by politicians. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it's about perspective. In the Second World War we blew the hell out of Monte Cassino - for no good reason at all. In the view of the people making this argument, I suppose that makes Franklin Roosevelt a barbarian who plundered the cultural heritage of Italy. Shame on everyone who spent time on this - myself included for wasting time and energy on such a trivial issue. Of all the things that happened in Baghdad for the last year, the theft (that may or may not have happened) of 33 artifacts is surely far down the list of importance. The only reason this is an issue is an attempt by the defenders of Saddam to trump up something, anything, to hide the catastrophic failure of their beliefs. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:16:56PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: trivial issue. Of all the things that happened in Baghdad for the last year, the theft (that may or may not have happened) of 33 artifacts is surely far down the list of importance. Agreed. There were much more important mistakes made by Americans after the war. You know I supported the war, so you can't make those claims about me that you made about some others. Just because I supported the war, however, doesn't mean that I turn a blind eye to mistakes. They can, and could have done better. As many people predicted, the resources to rebuild and govern Iraq do not flow nearly as freely as those to depose Saddam, and the plan for rebuilding was not sufficient since the Administration underestimated the problem (as many people predicted). They did great good in deposing Saddam, but they need to do better in rebuilding and governing and allocating resources to Iraq. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Monkeypox
At 05:23 PM 6/11/03 -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: There are some wild animals who could probably be domesticated in time (frex several small South American wildcats), and some who are part-way there already (ferrets, mongooses). Not mongeese? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lost in the Baghdad Museum: The Truth
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed. There were much more important mistakes made by Americans after the war. You know I supported the war, so you can't make those claims about me that you made about some others. Just because I supported the war, however, doesn't mean that I turn a blind eye to mistakes. They can, and could have done better. As many people predicted, the resources to rebuild and govern Iraq do not flow nearly as freely as those to depose Saddam, and the plan for rebuilding was not sufficient since the Administration underestimated the problem (as many people predicted). They did great good in deposing Saddam, but they need to do better in rebuilding and governing and allocating resources to Iraq. Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On what curve exactly are you grading, Erik? I mean, come on. This country was devastated by 25 years of brutal government, 12 years of shattering sanctions, and losing three major wars. Despite that, the whole place didn't collapse into civil wars, there haven't been mass famines, anarchy, anything. I am stunned by how well things are going, not how poorly. Would I prefer it if, in a perfect world, we had more troops in Iraq? Certainly. Find them for me. Go pick out which units of the American military are available to deploy to Iraq - and which committments we should abandon in order to fill that need. We are _stretched out_. We've been cutting the size of the military for 13 years now and guess what - this is why that might not have been a great idea. By any reasonable standard of reconstructing a country, this has been an extraordinary performance. Pretty much everywhere outside of Baghdad and Tikrit, things actually seem to be going pretty well. Maybe they will go south in the future - I don't know. But so far, by any standard other than some mythical perfection, things are going remarkably well. Compare Baghdad to Berlin in 1945 and tell me again how poorly the reconstruction is going. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Deborah Harrell wrote: s. How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who consider themselves atheist or agnostic (or indifferent) have had such a feeling/sens I'm agnostic - Eric's description of his agnostisism fits pretty closely with the way I feel - but I believe strongly in spirituality. I just don't think it has anything to do with a divine presence, and I feel that it probably be explained logically. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Do you consider yourself a Positivist? If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-) Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really know what it means, I'm quite ignorant on a lot of philosophy, in fact, despited my 3 letter designation I can't remember having ever read a philosophy book) [side note: on dictionary.com they had the ad: If you love someone who has Schizophrenia...you're not alone. ] positivist adj : of or relating to positivism; positivist thinkers; positivist doctrine; positive philosophy [syn: positivistic, positive] n : someone who emphasizes observable facts and excludes metaphysical speculation about origins or ultimate causes [syn: rationalist] Tentatively, I'd say yes based on that definition but I'm not really happy with it. I wouldn't describe my thought that way off-hand. I don't like the ambiguity of speculation about origins or ultimate causes. Maybe that is philosophical jargon and actually means something specific, but to me it is a little vauge. I'm not happy with that definition either. Websters Positivism: A theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences Logical Positivism: a 20th century philosophical movement that holds characteristically that all meaningful statements are either analytic or conclusively verifiable or at least confirmable by observation and experiment and that metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless -- called also logical empiricism = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:29 am, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Do you consider yourself a Positivist? If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-) Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really know what it means, I'm quite ignorant on a lot of philosophy, in fact, despited my 3 letter designation I can't remember having ever read a philosophy book) The basic affirmations of Positivism are (1) that all knowledge regarding matters of fact is based on the positive data of experience, and (2) that beyond the realm of fact is that of pure logic and pure mathematics, which were already recognized by the Scottish Empiricist and Skeptic David Hume as concerned with the relations of ideas and, in a later phase of Positivism, were classified as purely formal sciences. On the negative and critical side, the Positivists became noted for their repudiation of metaphysics; i.e., of speculation regarding the nature of reality that radically goes beyond any possible evidence that could either support or refute such transcendent knowledge claims. In its basic ideological posture, Positivism is thus worldly, secular, antitheological, and antimetaphysical. Strict adherence to the testimony of observation and experience is the all-important imperative of the Positivists. The Logical Positivist school differs from earlier empiricists and positivists (David Hume, Ernst Mach) in holding that the ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification rather than upon personal experience. It differs from Auguste Comte and J.S. Mill in holding that metaphysical doctrines are not false but meaningless-that the great unanswerable questions about substance, causality, freedom, and God are unanswerable just because they are not genuine questions at all. This last is a thesis about language, not about nature, and is based upon a general account of meaning and of meaninglessness. Britannica is handy :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth Thank you Mr. Goodall. That was very consice. I would like to add that modern positivists are more or less logical positivists, and follow the idias of Carl Poper (sp?). = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
writen by??? Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error, Richard Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said something like: The most amazing thing happened to me on the way to lecture. I passed a car and the license plate was WZ3726!!! Can you imagine? Out of all the millions of permutations, I saw that particular one! The odds are incredible! It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions, especially in the formation of hypothesis. I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perhaps not. Anyway, what are the chances? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin-L Chat Reminder
This is just a quick reminder that the Wednesday Brin-L chat is scheduled for 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time, so it started about an hour ago. There will probably be somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. See my instruction page for help getting there: http://www.sloan3d.com/brinl/brinmud.html BTW, this is the first time I've posted this reminder to the Brin-L CoolList. Whatever conflicts may happen between our two lists, anybody interested in David Brin and/or science fiction is welcome in the weekly chat. Besides, we could use the new blood! ;-) __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
