At 01:23 PM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
But what kind of discussion is it
At 12:10 PM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:25:48PM -, iaamoac wrote:
But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that
one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with
agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint?
If you are
At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on by
people acting less than civil.
With all due respect, and I am NOT talking about you, I think many people
react that way because SOME vegetarians are every bit as zealous
At 04:16 AM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:13:00AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
But is it likely to be any more possible for the believers to adopt
an agnostic viewpoint, even temporarily, than for the agnostics or
atheists to adopt the viewpoint of a believer,
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 06:13:40AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:16 AM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
In other words, is it easier for a neutral-rational person to adopt
an extreme-irrational position, or for an extreme-irrational person
to adopt a neutral-rational position?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are
to find out that God does not exist?
That is pretty much the definition, I thought.
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
My point is that the biography does not idolize him as a person. The author
idolizes him as an athlete and appreciates him as a man. But I would make
the point that Kofax seems unique in his maintaining his dignity and his
refusal to cash in on his celebrity. But rather then argue this I
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are
to find out that God does not exist?
That is pretty much the definition, I thought.
I agree.
Doug
I see 2 smallish problems with your analogy.
1 It ignores the control systems of an elevator and the fact
that control
systems operate independent of current cable length.
2 Loading on the bungee cord would take it to its maximum
length (assuming
it could even support the load of a cab). The
I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions. E.g.,
altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a
species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that
right?
The first part begs the question of success as a species. If
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on
by
people acting less than civil.
With all due respect, and I am NOT talking about you, I think many people
react that way
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 02:59 pm, iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as
they are
to find out that God does not exist?
That
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The only way I know of to get a simple equation is to make a
couple approximations:
(1) The temperature of all the air is the same, 300K
(2) The air all rotates with the endcaps, speed proportional to
radial distance from center
The second
So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to
force same-sex couples to live in sin?
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Those who study history are doomed to repeat it.
-Original Message-
From: Richard Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:18 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: US-based missiles to have global reach
Erik said:
I'd even be willing to bet that no serious agency in the world has
even STARTED actual
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:23 PM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:10 PM 7/4/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:25:48PM -, iaamoac wrote:
But what kind of discussion is it where one adopts a viewpoint that
one does not seriously believe? Why should those who disagree with
--- iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as
they are
to find out that God does not exist?
That
On 7 Jul 2003 at 17:09, William T Goodall wrote:
So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to
force same-sex couples to live in sin?
They think it's a sin in the first place.
In the abstract, I agree. But I won't judge individuals for that kind
of personal choice.
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 02:59 pm, iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to
force same-sex couples to live in sin?
Maybe it is becouse they think that they are already living in sin and what
they are afraid of is that their children, or childrens
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:06:48PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The only way I know of to get a simple equation is to make a
couple approximations:
(1) The temperature of all the air is the same, 300K
(2) The air all rotates with the
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:16:49AM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote:
I a currently collecting data to suggest the total output of Carbon
Nanotube (fullerenes) raw material worldwide in the next decade to
be in excess of 3000 tons. The proposed space elevator (from my past
post) only requires 20 tons
William T Goodall wrote:
So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to
force same-sex couples to live in sin?
They don't want there to be any same-sex couples, period. They don't
want anyone to engage in homosexual acts.
Many conservatives belong to the religious
http://www.idg.se/ArticlePages/idgnet.asp?id=4635
Software licenses don't work
2003-07-04 01:18
SAN FRANCISCO - IDG News Service\San Francisco Bureau - Robert McMillan
PeopleSoft Inc. may be spending its nights tossing and turning about a
hostile takeover by Oracle Corp, but maybe Oracle
I figured out some of the values relating to Rama; the air is thin
and the acceleration figures are not consistent with other claims.
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rama had a radius of about 8km. They entered near the axis and
began descending in spacesuits. After descending 2km,
By the way, does anyone know why so many science fiction writers
descripe spinning space habitats as being longer than they are wide?
Such habitats are intrinsically unstable. But habitats that are wider
than they are long are intrinsically stable
I know that the habitats are supposed to have
I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've been
comments on me ducking the issue. I am more than happy to discuss it; its
just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it.
Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says
nothing
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Same-sex marriage
William T Goodall wrote:
So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to
force same-sex
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 01:23 PM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
probably all agree to adopt an agnostic viewpoint for the duration.
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 07:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've
been
comments on me ducking the issue. I am more than happy to discuss it;
its
just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it.
Even if man is
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:38:36AM -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Yes, but I gave arguments showing that it did not give
reasonable results.
Not at all convincing arguments, with no numbers or equations.
They may not have convinced you, but they were
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:47:03PM -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Oh. I thought that I had read the first one. Sorry.
The cylindrical sea melts in the first one, that was what I was
referring to. But they go in before it melts, and that is when most of
the numbers are given. It melts and
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
By the way, does anyone know why so many science fiction writers
descripe spinning space habitats as being longer than they are wide?
Such habitats are intrinsically unstable. But habitats that are wider
than they are long are intrinsically stable
I know that
In a message dated 7/7/2003 11:38:33 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you thought of asking them if they ever wore cotton blends? If so,
they are violating Leviticus. :-)
50% straight cotton?
50% gay cotton?
Vilyehm Teighlore
-
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Same-sex marriage
Many conservatives belong to the religious right. I've had someone
throwing Leviticus
In a message dated 7/7/2003 12:08:13 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
By the way, does anyone know why so many science fiction writers
descripe spinning space habitats as being longer than they are wide?
Such habitats are
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions.
E.g.,
altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a
species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that
right?
The first part
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, regarding the pressure at
the center of a spinning space habitat with an 8 km radius:
Where did you get 0.9? Note that the 3.45 number has a 1/R factor
in it. If R goes from 5km to 8km, then 3.45 goes to 2.16. Then,
exp[- 1/2.16] is 0.63. The
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 11:35 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote:
I replied to this over 2 hours ago; the post hasn't
shown, so I'm trying again (although I don't remember
exactly what I said then... :P ).
It might show up in a week or so :)
(An email of mine showed up on the list after more than
Sorry its taken me so long to get back to the discussion. I was busy with my
son over the holiday.
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 05:29 pm, Jan Coffey wrote:
William, I am sorry, but it seems that you were vexed by the post you
are
responding to above. However, it seems that you are under some
alternative
interpritation. Your cry of rudeness seems unwarented. Perhaps you
shoudl
re-read and
At 06:05 PM 7/7/2003 +, you wrote:
By the way, does anyone know why so many science fiction writers
descripe spinning space habitats as being longer than they are wide?
Such habitats are intrinsically unstable. But habitats that are wider
than they are long are intrinsically stable
I know
(1) Belief in god(s) requires faith because there is insufficient
evidence to persuade an open-minded rational person, without
preexisting prejudice, that god(s) exist. I don't think that is a
matter for argument - theistic religion explicitly requires faith
*because* of this state of
On agnosticism:
I consider myself an agnostic. I don't see God as being a driving factor in my life
in any way, but I am unwilling to discount His existence entirely. That seems to be
the definition that works best for me at least.
Jim
___
Join
William T Goodall wrote:
So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want
to force same-sex couples to live in sin?
That's a darn good question. I mean, why *shouldn't* gays have to suffer through the
agonies of splitting the china and giving all their money to lawyers the
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/07/07/229216.shtml?tid=126tid=158tid=172;
tid=99
RFID Industry Confidential Memos
from the just-look-away-citizen dept.
An anonymous reader writes Cryptome has learned www.autoidcenter.org
(RFID flak) has made internal memos available for perusal at their
On 7 Jul 2003 at 14:15, The Fool wrote:
Human Task Switches Considered Harmful:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog22.html
The Lure of Data: Is It Addictive?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/business/yourmoney/06WIRE.html?pagew
ante
Kevin Tarr wrote:
...
A can like structure would have more surface area where the gravity is,
obviously one reason to use it in stories. But how are they unstable? Just
asking because I don't know. Do you mean because they can tumble? If so,
how much inertia would a wheel like structure need
At 02:44 PM 7/7/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 01:23 PM 7/4/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want a serious discussion of religion, we should
probably all agree to adopt
Nick Arnett wrote:
I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions. E.g.,
altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a
species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that
right?
Except that some (most?) things we consider
Dan Minette wrote:
One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with
his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics. It was one of his
greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for
ethics. It was clear, by the nature of his statements,
At 09:42 AM 7/7/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:16 AM 7/4/03 -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
Every time I bring up anything related to vegetarianism I get pounced on
by
people acting less than civil.
With all due respect, and I am NOT talking
At 12:54 PM 7/7/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
Many conservatives belong to the religious right. I've had someone
throwing Leviticus at me on this issue.
I hope they at least tore it out before they did so, rather than throwing
all 66 books at you, which might be heavy enough to hurt some .
At 03:10 PM 7/7/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/7/2003 11:38:33 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you thought of asking them if they ever wore cotton blends? If so,
they are violating Leviticus. :-)
50% straight cotton?
50% gay cotton?
At 12:48 PM 7/7/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions.
E.g.,
altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a
species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism
At 03:35 PM 7/7/03 -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
I replied to this over 2 hours ago; the post hasn't
shown, so I'm trying again (although I don't remember
exactly what I said then... :P ).
Well, I tried to send a bunch of e-mail messages earlier (before I had to
leave for class), but I got an
At 02:23 AM 7/8/03 +0100, William T Goodall wrote:
The ethical codes of bankers would seem superfluous to someone who
believes that money-lending is evil.
They have an ethical code?
-- Ronn! :)
Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt.
___
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 04:49:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as
they are
to find out that God does not exist?
That is pretty much the definition, I thought.
In
59 matches
Mail list logo
