At 05:10 PM Saturday 5/6/2006, The Fool wrote:
[snipped]
Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones
claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can
you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions
like the truth or rational thinking
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones
claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can
you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions
like the truth or rational thinking and behavior) that you are _for_?
On 07/05/2006, at 3:37 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones
claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can
you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions
Charlie Bell escreveu:
I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think
he admires one religion, fundamentalist atheism.
*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?
By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc] exists.
Alberto Monteiro
On 07/05/2006, at 10:05 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell escreveu:
I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think
he admires one religion, fundamentalist atheism.
*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?
By rejecting any
Charlie Bell wrote:
*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?
By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc]
exists.
So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be fundamentalist, there's
no scripture or dogma.
Yes, there are. Das Kapital and the
Alberto wrote:
It might be a belief, it might even be
strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of belief.
No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all
religions
put together - you missed this same discussion we had here about 6
months ago.
Wern't
On 07/05/2006, at 10:40 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
*wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief?
By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc]
exists.
So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be fundamentalist,
Ten or fifteen years ago, I gave Kiersey style Myers-Briggs
tests to dozen people I knew.
And anecdotal evidince has what value in science?
Well, you need not pay any attention to my report. My experience was
that when I gave a test to a dozen people, I found that a bit
On 07/05/2006, at 10:49 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Alberto wrote:
It might be a belief, it might even be
strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of
belief.
No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all
religions
put together - you missed this
Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/05/2006, at 3:37 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones
claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can
you give us some examples of something
On 07/05/2006, at 11:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
I think militant atheism is a better description of the
philosophy apparently espoused by The Fool.
Certainly is.
There is no text from which to be fundamentalist for atheism, as
far as I know. Militant is a reasonably accurate
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charlie Bell
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 3:57 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs
On 07/05/2006, at 11:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
I think militant atheism is a better
On 08/05/2006, at 12:28 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Well, then it's clearly possible to be an agnostic Christian by that
definition. A significant fraction of Christians would be
agnostics, by your
definition...including me. Even our pastor, who is fairly
Evangelical,
agrees that there is no
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/05/age-of-miracles-wonder.html
Only now it's insufficient. We'd like to make pixels move around on a
simulated CRT screen. And we DON'T want to do it using high-level
complex stuff like VISUAL BASIC. Old fashioned line coding, iterating
to move pixels according
Easy stuff first. I'm an OSX wonk and have been a while -- I
participated in the public beta, back before the century turned, when
my PowerBook, on its first load of the nascent OS, ran through a series
of UNIX (actually Darwin, which is Apple's version of FreeBSD, which is
technically not
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As to the BASIC question: I'll shoot you a counter-question: Why?
snip JavaSh!t and high level programming
Dr. Brin isn't interested in that high level stuff. Too complicated.
Not simple enough. Don't bring it up again or he'll start getting,
I'll ignore the ad hominem, but point out that OOP frameworks rock tha'
hizzouse. That's why I wrote a 500+ page book on the topic for
Osborne/McGraw-Hill, after all.
On May 7, 2006, at 5:54 PM, The Fool wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As to the BASIC question: I'll shoot
OK, I've had to grudgingly admit there's one MS product that doesn't
suck.
Since February I've been dabbling in the Dark Side in the form of (1)
an original Xbox bought at the request of my surrogate son; and (2) a
360 upgraded to when I had the chance.
Damn me, I actually like it. I have
Actually in BA I chose a Spitfire based on the recommendations of a
Cockney eight-year-old or so who was wrong, ultimately, but quite
authoritative. I switched eventually to a Corsair and spent most of
the game time in blackout as I over-gee'd the stick. Sigh.
Spitfire too little, Corsair
Also, in re Paul Simon.
I think _Graceland_ is probably his best work ever. Lasers in the
jungle, yes … but his human touch was and is astonishing. The
Mississippi Delta was shining like a National guitar … I am following
the highway to the cradle of the Civil War is a fantastic entrant
On May 7, 2006, at 8:18 PM, Damon Agretto wrote:
Actually in BA I chose a Spitfire based on the recommendations of a
Cockney eight-year-old or so who was wrong, ultimately, but quite
authoritative. I switched eventually to a Corsair and spent most of
the game time in blackout as I
On May 7, 2006, at 8:06 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
snip a bit of self-loathing over liking the Xbox
(Friends being parlance meaning OK to play with -- real human
friendships are based in a lot more than game theory. Right?)
Based on some of the threads around here lately, I think there are
Yeah, well, fuck 'em.
On May 7, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Based on some of the threads around here lately, I think there are
some who would not accept the existence of friendship without a
double-blind test.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
Not without scientific proof that they are, in fact, my friends.
On May 7, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Yeah, well, fuck 'em.
On May 7, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Based on some of the threads around here lately, I think there are
some who would not accept the existence
Or, at least, spermicidal condoms. ;)
On May 7, 2006, at 10:36 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Not without scientific proof that they are, in fact, my friends.
On May 7, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Yeah, well, fuck 'em.
On May 7, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Based on some of the
26 matches
Mail list logo
