Charlie said:
Charlie said:
Ritu wrote:
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To say the same thing differently, if there is such a
thing as a just
war, economics isn't how it is justified.
On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Somewhere
On 20/09/2006, at 6:04 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie said:
Charlie said:
Ritu wrote:
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To say the same thing differently, if there is such a
thing as a just
war, economics isn't how it is justified.
On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM,
Charlie wrote:
But I wrote none of the lines you quoted. The first bit is
Nick's. :)
Well, why didn't you say that then? :p
Because I expect the primary attribution to relate directly to the line
one is responding to... :p
Ritu
___
Hullo Dave, all,
I applaud your gesture of even-handedness as this is a useful reminder
for maintaining a civil tone and maybe, just maybe, getting to root
issues. A problem well-stated is a problem half-solved, and all. I
just wished our system actually worked as we are sold it does.
My
As Steve said,
The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six
years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set
up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established
a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat
technologies, and even casts of
On Sep 19, 2006, at 5:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you suppose that armies should get their food, clothing, and
boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, from producers of
food, clothing, and boots?
That has nothing to do
In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:06:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something
because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think
there are many examples of large numbers of smart,
In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:43:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry, I phrased that poorly. He was _always_ an
extraordinary, Hall-of-Fame caliber shortstop, because
his hitting more than made up for his atrocious
fielding. His hitting was never quite as good
In a message dated 9/19/2006 1:05:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well
supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory.
Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather than continuing to trade rhetorical points, perhaps you could
start by specifying those things that are broadly-accepted factual
inaccuracies - and not just partisan factual inaccuracies
... So that you can just
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:52 PM
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies or why the Red Sox collapsed
In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:43:21 P.M. Eastern
On 21/09/2006, at 11:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in
science. All
scientific facts are in theory provisional since scientific facts
are by
definition falseafiable. Many things are so well established and
so imbedded in a
net
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
I read Cassini Division over the few quiet times I found
at Burning Man last week (...)
The first time I heard about this Burning Man was in
a Malcolm-in-the-Middle episode. It sounds like Brazilian
Carnival, but tamer :-P
And at Carnival,
In a message dated 9/19/2006 4:45:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fact.
How it works is a theory.
Finally - that's exactly what I was saying about evolution before.
Same thing.
No disagreement here.
I am not sure
On 21/09/2006, at 12:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure things are so simple in differentiating fact from
theory. The
facts of evolution are that there is change over time in the type
and nature
of living things.
That's the fact part of evolution, yep.
This implies that
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:49 AM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
[...] do you let the programmers self-test in a vacuum
If so, you probably go through a _lot_ of testers that way. And you
have to wonder about the reports they gasp out in the last stages of
hypoxia.
Dammit,
On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of scientific proof means we can't be certain
of some things.
Hey, you have inspired a neologism.
Creationism is probapolitically true.
Nick
--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL
On 21/09/2006, at 1:13 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of scientific proof means we can't be certain
of some things.
Hey, you have inspired a neologism.
Creationism is
At 10:07 PM Wednesday 9/20/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:49 AM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
[...] do you let the programmers self-test in a vacuum
If so, you probably go through a _lot_ of testers that way. And
you have to wonder about the reports
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My problem with this particular situation is a serious lack of
evenhandedness shows deepening flaws. For almost two decades I've
watched conservative politicians court and skirt this set of rules -
especially in the South -
20 matches
Mail list logo
