Re: When BatLeths Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have BatLeths

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 10:48 PM Sunday 5/28/2006, Bryon Daly wrote:

[snip for brevity]

When I saw this knife amnesty story, I was immediately reminded of the JMS's
notes.  Outlawed knives seems to fit with that.

As far as how can knives be outlawed and still have kitchen knives...maybe
not for longhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
But aside from the nanny doctors calling for the kitchen knife ban,




I suspect that in a majority of the cases in which kitchen knives are 
involved, the kitchen in question is in the mutual residence of the 
cutter and the cuttee.  IOW, that or any other weapon of opportunity 
is used during a domestic argument, probably fueled by EtOH (and not 
the kind some people suggest as automobile fuel . . . ).





 it seems
the operative point to the law as described is "public place", so presumably
a knife in a kitchen an perhaps a machete in a garden are OK.




Until someone comes up with the idea of "secondhand sharpness" being 
a danger to non-knife-users and children . . .



--Ronn!  :)

"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country 
and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER 
GOD.  Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that 
would be eliminated from schools too?"

   -- Red Skelton

(Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Raise the Cloak!

[Andrew Paul]

> From: Deborah Harrell
> 
> >Nick Lidser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Unveiling the invisible cloak
> 
> >
> >
> > No such cloak exists yet...
> 
> Ah, but a fur coat does!  As everyone knows, the hair
> of unicorns has just those special properties which
> bends EM energy around them, thus  rendering them
> invisible to us when standing still.  (They create
> blurs of light and shadow when moving.)  Felines,
> naturally, *do* have the special retinal adaptations
> which allow them to see unicorns and other "invisible"
> creatures, hence their occasional 'inexplicable'
> stares.#
>  I'm *so* glad that science has finally proven my pet
> theory...
> 
> Debbi
> Invisible Teal Unicorns Maru  ;-)
> 
> #There's a story in _Catfantastic_, IIRC, about some
> cats and the computer-generated bogies they thwart.
> 

This probably isn't the story, I too am thinking of another, but a
similar topic.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/smith/smith2.h
tml

and even pictures

http://www.fourth-millennium.net/cordwainer-vr/mother-hittons-farm.html


Unicorns-R-Us Maru




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: When BatLeths Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have BatLeths

[Bryon Daly]

On 5/28/06, David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> Apparently that day is here:
>
> <>

"BatLeth" meant nothing to me, and it's not clear
the thing is a very useful weapon.

But the part I'm amazed at, is that swords/knives
are outlawed?  Can someone clarify this for me,
I mean you have to be able to have kitchen knives,
and maybe a machete for the "garden"?



Anecdotal and mostly irrelevant story:
Back during the original run of Babylon 5 (probably 9+ years ago, so forgive
me if my memory is faulty), JMS (the series creator) discussed in the B5
newsgroup how the BBC censored part of a major scene involving use of a
knife (where when Vir apologizes to G'Kar for the Centauri's crimes against
the Narn, G'Kar pulls a knife, cuts his hand and as the blood drips, counts
off "dead, dead, dead...". )  IIRC, he mentioned another minor scene
censored , apparently for being too disturbing, where a few characters were
briefly held at knifepoint (no one cut or injured).  I'd seen the scene
refered to, and it was nothing shocking oand probably a lot less violent
than some scenes on B5.  JMS explained that in the UK, knives were
considered especially horrifying, which brought on the censorship.

When I saw this knife amnesty story, I was immediately reminded of the JMS's
notes.  Outlawed knives seems to fit with that.

As far as how can knives be outlawed and still have kitchen knives...maybe
not for longhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
But aside from the nanny doctors calling for the kitchen knife ban, it seems
the operative point to the law as described is "public place", so presumably
a knife in a kitchen an perhaps a machete in a garden are OK.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: When BatLeths Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have BatLeths

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:36 PM Sunday 5/28/2006, David Hobby wrote:

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

Apparently that day is here:
<>


"BatLeth" meant nothing to me, and it's not clear
the thing is a very useful weapon.

But the part I'm amazed at, is that swords/knives
are outlawed?  Can someone clarify this for me,
I mean you have to be able to have kitchen knives,
and maybe a machete for the "garden"?




This article is a link on the other 
site:  <>. 
As someone on another list pointed out, most of the knifings in the 
UK involve kitchen knives, so your point is a good one.  (I don't 
know what you grow in your garden:  I use my machete when the bushes 
at the far end of the yard get out of control.  Though more often I 
use pruning shears except for the big limbs, which is when I get out 
the power saw . . . )





We live in New York state, and have a couple
katanas.  (Why?  Ask my son...)




Sounds like you're okay* unless you decide to move to old York.

_
*For the moment, at least.





--Ronn!  :)

"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country 
and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER 
GOD.  Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that 
would be eliminated from schools too?"

   -- Red Skelton

(Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: When BatLeths Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have BatLeths

[David Hobby]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

Apparently that day is here:

<>


"BatLeth" meant nothing to me, and it's not clear
the thing is a very useful weapon.

But the part I'm amazed at, is that swords/knives
are outlawed?  Can someone clarify this for me,
I mean you have to be able to have kitchen knives,
and maybe a machete for the "garden"?

We live in New York state, and have a couple
katanas.  (Why?  Ask my son...)

---David

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The List

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 07:40 PM Sunday 5/28/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


In a message dated 5/28/2006 5:36:05 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Has the  list been down recently, or did everyone else leave their
computers behind  for a long Memorial Day weekend after seeing X-Men 3?

(Personally, I  did the latter at midnight Thursday and spent most of
the subsequent time  lying down with a couple of heating pads because
everything from the top  of my neck to my waist hurts whenever I move
or breathe, but that's just  me . . . )



Did you stay for the coda, or did you wimp out with the majority of  mindless
Marveless minions who walked out when the credits started  rolling?



I _always_ stay for the credits, if for no other reason than to see 
if anyone I know had anything to do with the movie.  (Occasionally 
the projectionist gets tired and cuts the credits off before they 
end, so I have to leave.)  At this particular showing, I'm guessing 
1/3 to 1/2 left at the beginning of the credits (aided no doubt by 
the lights coming up at that point) while some remained in their 
seats and others stood around shooting the breeze with the people 
they came with (only one group came in costume, though).  Just before 
the credits ended, though, someone went "Shh!" loudly, so at least 
that one person had a clue what was coming . . .



--Ronn!  :)

"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country 
and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER 
GOD.  Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that 
would be eliminated from schools too?"

   -- Red Skelton

(Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The List

[Medievalbk]

 
In a message dated 5/28/2006 5:36:05 PM US Mountain Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Has the  list been down recently, or did everyone else leave their 
computers behind  for a long Memorial Day weekend after seeing X-Men 3?

(Personally, I  did the latter at midnight Thursday and spent most of 
the subsequent time  lying down with a couple of heating pads because 
everything from the top  of my neck to my waist hurts whenever I move 
or breathe, but that's just  me . . . )



Did you stay for the coda, or did you wimp out with the majority of  mindless 
Marveless minions who walked out when the credits started  rolling?
 
Vilyehm
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Brin. Cyrano de Bergerac's "Thrust home." (Hoo-ha!) ::rimshot::

[Medievalbk]

I have been accused of continually seeing the obvious that does not  exist.
 
I didn't remember the translator's name, and so I had to look through five  
different editions at the used bookstore until I found the one that matched the 
 movie. Brian Hooker's:
 
"Then, as I end the refrain, thrust home!"
 
Other editions had "I hit" and other such correct fencing  terminology.
 
Only the Hooker had a sexual inuendo.
 
So, dear list experts, expatriates, and exporters of trivial knowledge,  does 
the original French line have the requisite sexual undertones?
 
In the rehlm of deep underground demonic fiqure skating championships,  (i.e. 
Hell actually becomes minus in temperature according to Alberto) I'm  trying 
to write the Hoon Book of Fencing.
 
I could use some help from fencers--and from anatomists. All Hoon are  
double-jointed as well as having that extra arm and leg segment. The toehook  
means 
they can lunge and stand off balance, and an arm or leg can lock into  
position to trap an opponent's arm, leg, or blade.
 
This is of course for stage combat. Actual Olympic style fencing has a long  
list of no-nos.
 
 
 
William  Taylor
-
Good words on page I do forebare
Not  pulled out from my derriere.
Blest be the man who says, "writes well"
And  curst be he who makes me spell.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The List

[Ronn!Blankenship]

Has the list been down recently, or did everyone else leave their 
computers behind for a long Memorial Day weekend after seeing X-Men 3?


(Personally, I did the latter at midnight Thursday and spent most of 
the subsequent time lying down with a couple of heating pads because 
everything from the top of my neck to my waist hurts whenever I move 
or breathe, but that's just me . . . )



Chronic Illness Sucks Maru


--Ronn!  :)

"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country 
and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER 
GOD.  Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that 
would be eliminated from schools too?"

   -- Red Skelton

(Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Critical Features

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 10:54 AM Sunday 5/28/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:


On 28/05/2006, at 5:21 PM, Robert J. Chassell wrote:


Incidently, does the possibility of evolving mark the distinction
between living and nonliving?  Or does it require more criteria
(which I have suggested before: selecting, eating, excreting,
healing)?


Like the distinction between many other things (species boundaries,
sexual preference, race, religion and superstition (crosslist poke at
Dan, sorry... ;) ), atmosphere and space, so on...) there are obvious
cases where it's easy to define, and others where it isn't.

A telephone is not alive. A brick is not alive. A badger is living
(pedants: no-one has shot it yet, ok... ;) ). A mushroom is part of a
living structure. Amoebae are living.

According to basic biology, living things share the following
qualities - metabolism, growth, stimulus/response and reproduction.
If it does those, it's alive. In addition, living things exhibit
organisation (a structure which is important to function) and
adaptation to their environment.



So:

(1)  virus  ( ) alive ( ) not alive.

(2) BSE prion  ( ) alive ( ) not alive.

(Choose one and only one answer to each question.)



--Ronn!  :)

"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country 
and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER 
GOD.  Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that 
would be eliminated from schools too?"

   -- Red Skelton

(Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Critical Features

[Charlie Bell]

On 28/05/2006, at 5:21 PM, Robert J. Chassell wrote:


Incidently, does the possibility of evolving mark the distinction
between living and nonliving?  Or does it require more criteria
(which I have suggested before: selecting, eating, excreting,
healing)?


Like the distinction between many other things (species boundaries,  
sexual preference, race, religion and superstition (crosslist poke at  
Dan, sorry... ;) ), atmosphere and space, so on...) there are obvious  
cases where it's easy to define, and others where it isn't.


A telephone is not alive. A brick is not alive. A badger is living  
(pedants: no-one has shot it yet, ok... ;) ). A mushroom is part of a  
living structure. Amoebae are living.


According to basic biology, living things share the following  
qualities - metabolism, growth, stimulus/response and reproduction.  
If it does those, it's alive. In addition, living things exhibit  
organisation (a structure which is important to function) and  
adaptation to their environment.


Evolution is a concept which is not limited to living things, it's a  
consequence of imperfect reproduction and death (or deletion, or  
selection), and it's applicable to *any* system that has those  
features. In terms of living things - viruses and some prions exhibit  
evolution, but they're not considered truly living (or truly non  
living - welcome to the Grey Area...).


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Critical Features

[Robert J. Chassell]

Compared to a previous paradigm, what are the critical features, the
key notions, for a Newtonian (or post-Newtonian?) paradigm?

I think they are:

  * the distinction between the animate and the inanimate.
(Obviously, people always distinguished between the living and the
dead; what I mean is making the distinction in otherwise
irrelevant endeavors.)

Rats are not billiard balls.

  * simple entities can be sufficiently described by mathematics.

Planets conceived as point masses.
Species with describable variations.

  * the application of the mathematics of probability by humans.

thermodynamics of atoms,
evolution of species

  * the (frequently unarticulated) application of the notion of
`falsifiability' in a manner that exceeds the constraints of a
categorical or nominal scale, an equivalence relation; the
application of judgment to say more than `true' or `false',
`black' or `white'.

Thus, in biology, the realization that geographically distance
seagulls cannot interbreed successfully, thereby indicating that
they are members of two different species, even though every
geographically intermediate seagull can interbreed with its
neighbors.  The latter would suggest, if it be always true that
equivalents to the same other are equal to each other, and that
interbreeding is the right measure, that the two birds belong to
the same species.

  * paying at least a little attention to the reasoning, observing,
and experimenting of strangers.

A century ago, the French read of the German discovery of X-rays
and Americans noted that French `N-rays' were bogus.

  * the degree to which entities `remember' or `learn' over
generations.

Electrons/positrons combine and turn into high energy
electromagnetic rays; and high energy electromagnetic rays can
turn into electrons and positrons.  Such changes might be
perceived as marking generations, the one (I am not saying which)
being the `genome' and the other being the `genome carrying
entity' (such as horses and humans).  But the species (of
positive and negative electrons) is not varigated within itself
like species of horses or human, none change, and none are
selected differently.

Incidently, does the possibility of evolving mark the distinction
between living and nonliving?  Or does it require more criteria
(which I have suggested before: selecting, eating, excreting,
healing)?

What do you think?

--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l