Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

On 26/11/2006, at 3:15 AM, jdiebremse wrote: This is where language can be imprecise. Torture can mean a number of things, such as cutting off digits. We're not sanctioning that.We are sanctioning certain practices, which many reasonable people consider to be torture - but which

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

On 26/11/2006, at 2:58 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When it becomes plain that the whole idea of terror is to scare someone, then a look at our *rhetorical* reactions shows that we are not stiffening our spines and holdi

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

On 26/11/2006, at 2:56 AM, jdiebremse wrote: I don't think that we're writing checks to the Saudi government, but I do believe that we provide military assistance. This assistance obviously goes back to the first Gulf War, and is related to the fact that it is Saudi supplies of oil that are

Re: It ain't the genes that are different, it's the number of copies . . .

On 25/11/2006, at 3:45 PM, David Hobby wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The genome is already messy. The notion that are chromosomes have a neat lineup of genes is incorrect. There are insertions into the middle of genes (introns). Many genes are spread over discontinuous aspects of

Re: It ain't the genes that are different, it's the number of copies . . .

On 24/11/2006, at 12:05 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: I am pretty much familiar with Down Syndrome [my oldest daughter has it]. I didn't know that (or didn't recall it). So you understand the principle. There is a plethora of similar conditions depending on which chromosome

Re: It ain't the genes that are different, it's the number of copies . . .

On 23/11/2006, at 8:56 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Surprising result about human DNA: <> How serious is this? My skeptic filter brings a question: if this were true, it would make inter-

Re: It ain't the genes that are different, it's the number of copies . . .

On 24/11/2006, at 6:20 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 23 Nov 2006 at 2:59, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Surprising result about human DNA: <> Post-Darwinian genetics has been something which has been mumbled about for a

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

On 23/11/2006, at 9:29 AM, Richard Baker wrote: Quite how we can convince people in the regions where the failure of the Islamic states is most total that the things they ought to be emulating from the glorious past of Islamic are openness to trade, toleration, meritocracy, egality, resp

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

On 22/11/2006, at 3:18 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And so there are some f*ckers out there who have been responsible for acts of terror causing the deaths of a few hundred people worldwide on top of the WTC attacks. I was go

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

On 22/11/2006, at 3:10 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When it becomes plain that the whole idea of terror is to scare someone, then a look at our *rhetorical* reactions shows that we are not stiffening our spines and holding our

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 11/11/2006, at 3:32 AM, Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of pencimen What exactly are the possible adverse consequences of allowing gay marriage? "Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from

Re: Polygamy in the closet

On 11/11/2006, at 2:21 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And there are polygamous stable partnerships already. They're rare, but they do exist in "the West", and in other parts of the world they're more common

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 09/11/2006, at 11:47 PM, jdiebremse wrote: I don't know what "provisions" those are that you are talking about, To answer this bit - "provision for the children" means inheritance and child support in case of one partner leaving the relationship through divorce or death. And support f

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 10/11/2006, at 4:58 PM, pencimen wrote: JDG wrote: Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless, talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure. I don't know what "provisions" those are that you are talking about, > but you are basically suggestin

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 10/11/2006, at 3:23 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell wrote: The former of your definitions has only recently been added to marriage law in Australia. The latter, we

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 10/11/2006, at 2:35 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell wrote: The former of your definitions has only recently been added to marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Pr

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 09/11/2006, at 11:47 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The former of your definitions has only recently been added to marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided people make provision for the children o

Re: Is Britain Becoming a Surveillance Society?

On 07/11/2006, at 11:46 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 6 Nov 2006 at 23:48, John D. Giorgis wrote: An oddly on-topic article.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm And as ever it COMPLETELY misses the point. Yes, public areas are covered with cameras. Private areas are not. There

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 07/11/2006, at 11:18 PM, jdiebremse wrote: They're not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're being treated differently. But that's only for a definition of marriage as a "partnership between any two people", that's not true for a definition of marriage as "a partnershi

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 07/11/2006, at 5:56 PM, pencimen wrote: Charlie wrote: Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and round we go. I agree, but younger people have more tolerant attitudes and are more likely to ask

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 07/11/2006, at 5:08 PM, pencimen wrote: JDG wrote: Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation If the partner of choice isn't involved then the word "free" is somewhat misplaced. In any case, it's hearte

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 07/11/2006, at 4:15 PM, jdiebremse wrote: Or is it moral, just and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual orientation? Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation They're not f

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 07/11/2006, at 2:49 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good argument for discrimination on gende

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 06/11/2006, at 9:31 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 6 Nov 2006 at 7:56, Charlie Bell wrote: I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good argument for discrimination on gender preference for mar

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

On 06/11/2006, at 7:40 AM, William T Goodall wrote: So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay- marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church' Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics. Is there anyone against gay marriage that isn'

Re: Silent oceans?

On 04/11/2006, at 11:11 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: I'd already stopped eating shrimp some years back, because of large by-catch loss ("undesirable" marine animals caught in the nets and tossed back, usually dead), (...) Shrimps are created in "farms"

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 29/10/2006, at 12:44 AM, jdiebremse wrote: Its the creation of law that did not previously exist before. Is it? It's only since homosexual couples have been trying to get married that they've been told "No you can't". In fact, in the UK and Australia they had to add legislation to p

Re: World Champions 2006

On 28/10/2006, at 2:47 PM, Horn, John wrote: St. Louis Cardinals, World Champions. *cough* Time they allowed other countries in, eh? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 28/10/2006, at 1:05 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So what on earth is your problem with the ruling, as you seem to agree with it. I am appalled at the way it was handed down. I've looked over a bit of the decisi

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 28/10/2006, at 12:56 PM, jdiebremse wrote: And what has been invented and imposed out of whole cloth here? Is it really not obvious to you? No, it's not. The NJSC decision in a nutshell is that it ordered the NJ Legislature to either: 1) Create gay marriages 2) Create gay "c

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 28/10/2006, at 9:40 AM, Matt Grimaldi wrote: I agree, there's nothing wrong with calling it a civil union, and that should maybe be the official name. But I confess that I'd personally call such things "marriages", just to upset traditionalists. Eventually, they'll be called that 'c

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 28/10/2006, at 12:25 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process, by the majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority. So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of the majority, especially those on separati

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 27/10/2006, at 11:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 27 Oct 2006, at 12:46PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 27/10/2006, at 9:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote: Do weddings automatically confer legal rights in the UK?Are religious ceremonies required in the UK? Until very recently it had to be in

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

On 27/10/2006, at 9:48 PM, jdiebremse wrote: So, in other words, the Republicans increased their budget from $6.5 million in 2001 to $12.7 million (2001 dollars) in FY 2006. Close to DOUBLED it in five years in *inflation-adjusted* terms. ...and the budget for 2007 is back to 7M, which wou

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 27/10/2006, at 9:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal marriage isn't going to be a wildly popular idea Well, it's a good job that's not what I

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 27/10/2006, at 9:29 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote: Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process, by the majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the ma

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

On 27/10/2006, at 9:14 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all b

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 27/10/2006, at 11:41 AM, Jim Sharkey wrote: Further, I would note that you and everyone else here has, in any number of discussions in the past, chosen to ignore some questions or comments on any topic. This may be tacitly ceding a given point, or (as in my case this time) not really under

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote: Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process, by the majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority. So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of the majority, especially those on sepa

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 27/10/2006, at 11:01 AM, jdiebremse wrote: An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal marriage isn't going to be a wildly popular idea Well, it's a good job that's not what I said. I said separate the legal and religious portions. Make the legal agreement th

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

On 27/10/2006, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular histori

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

On 27/10/2006, at 5:04 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*, Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes. Once, as far as I can find. Yes, 2 1/2 ye

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 26/10/2006, at 11:59 PM, David Hobby wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: ... From my personal point of view, as a registered NJ voter, I don't really mind the idea of extending protections to committed gay couples similar to committed straight couples, in general. I'm still not a fan of calling

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

On 26/10/2006, at 1:30 PM, jdiebremse wrote: Seems like the NJ SC is not willing to push the Full Faith and Credit issue. But I imagine it's a good-sized win for gay rights activists. If you consider maneuvering outside of the democratic process to get what you want to be a "good-sized" win.

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 25/10/2006, at 2:16 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: How about: E) Global warming, caused by greedy oil company executives in cahoots with a Republican President. Hmmm. While Bush has an appalling environmental record, I think it's hard to say that climate change is his fault, or the oil

Re: Apostates!

On 24/10/2006, at 12:05 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Well point us at it, because while you may disagree with their conclusions, they are indeed scientists. It's possible to disagree with an analysis without casting someone as a lackey of whatever conspiracy you want, Especially without providin

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 24/10/2006, at 11:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Meanwhile, you spend 4 years in a jail, possibly in Syria, and get tortured. Great. Charlie Charlie, why are you mixing up cases of the treatment Syrian/Canadian citizen who was sent to Syria (under the well established legal precedent)? I'

Re: Apostates!

On 24/10/2006, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 23 Oct 2006 at 17:11, Dan Minette wrote: Meanwile, other - very well documented - research is showing that less light has been hitting the Earth. By a degree, on average, of some 22% in Israel - with comparative figures elsewhere. Let m

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 24/10/2006, at 4:03 AM, Dave Land wrote: On Oct 22, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:27 AM Sunday 10/22/2006, pencimen wrote: For those few of us who saw the disaster that is Bush coming, While some voted for Bush primarily because they thought that President Gore wou

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 24/10/2006, at 2:21 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Can't you see how insidious this is? No, because the American legal system doesn't work that way. ...doesn't work *what* way? Bad laws have been used in the past to detain people that haven't done anything wrong. It takes years to right th

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 24/10/2006, at 2:21 AM, Dan Minette wrote: But their "next friend" can...and this has happened in both cases where a citizen was declared an unlawful enemy combatant. Both cases have been reviewed by the courts. The potential hole in habeas corpus, someone rotting in prison has no ch

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 24/10/2006, at 2:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote: I underlined the key phrase here. There is no doubt that the law states that alien UEC do not have habeas corpus rights. This phrase was clearly intended to exclude citizens...by the use of the word alien. As I said elsewhere, this has am

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 22/10/2006, at 6:26 AM, Dave Land wrote: If I read (e)(1)(B) correctly, you don't even have to be actually _determined_ to be an enemy combatant, merely _awaiting_such_ determination_, in order to have habeus corpus suspended, but you _do_ appear to have to be an alien... I'm not taking a

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 21/10/2006, at 12:00 PM, Dan Minette wrote: This would seem to exclude citizens. However, it actually doesn't, because if you are declared a UEC because you have been deemed to have provided material support to terrorists (say you'd rented an apartment to the 9/11 hijackers), then you are o

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 21/10/2006, at 8:10 AM, Dan Minette wrote: As I stated in my correspondence with Rob in this thread, this pretty well sets the boundaries. Americans who fight overseas against US soldiers can be treated like the other soldiers. American citizens who are not so engaged cannot, even if

Re: Apostates!

On 19/10/2006, at 1:50 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: ... and won't mess up your tires with their blood & guts. :) Julia who probably shouldn't post after a margarita, really... Too right you shouldn't. Go drink a pitcherful, THEN post. Charlie Bad Influence Maru

Re: Apostates!

On 19/10/2006, at 12:56 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Global warming... just a theory... Bunnies... I think it's bunnies... - jmh Don't swerve for the bunnies. If you hit one and it dies, at least whatever genes it was carrying for

Re: Apostates!

On 19/10/2006, at 12:07 AM, John W Redelfs wrote: On 10/17/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 18/10/2006, at 2:31 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at > Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5

Re: Apostates!

On 18/10/2006, at 10:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/17/2006 5:41:07 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) Global warming... jus

Re: Apostates!

On 18/10/2006, at 2:31 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) Global warming... just a theory... Charlie Deja Vu Maru ___ http://www.mccmed

Re: How to be:

On 16/10/2006, at 3:06 PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: Or is the best option to try to move one of the big 2 closer to the middle? Can that even be done? I've heard some moderates say that it takes both wings for the American eagle to fly. But what good are the wings without a body in the

Re: Irregulars Question

On 14/10/2006, at 8:42 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: It does. Thank you for mentioning that, since I use it all the time for burning discs. Duh. Didn't even try to find it there (mainly because someone on another list mentioned something else but as yet hasn't followed through with a na

Re: Irregulars Question

On 14/10/2006, at 12:59 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:54 AM Friday 10/13/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 13/10/2006, at 9:26 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I'm looking for a program or method to be able to copy a CD-ROM onto the HD and install it and run it from there. Someone on an

Re: Irregulars Question

On 13/10/2006, at 9:26 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I'm looking for a program or method to be able to copy a CD-ROM onto the HD and install it and run it from there. Someone on another list said there is a program called "Liquid CD" which does this on the Mac. I of course am looking for s

Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic

On 13/10/2006, at 1:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote: In this case, the anthropologist doesn't impart any information to anyone. Everyone knows that N(blue) >= 1.So, presuming that the island existed in a steady state before the anthropologist's arrival, then her arrival with the announcement tha

Re: Br!n: BASIC for kids

On 11/10/2006, at 6:15 AM, Jim Sharkey wrote: Alberto Monteiro wrote: http://kidbasic.sourceforge.net/ Oooh, Sourceforge! They're the same guys who got the 3DO port of Star Control 2 and have been made it pretty playable in Windows. Those guys rule. I'll have to check out the site. Sour

Re: Whinging

On 10/10/2006, at 10:15 PM, Ray Ludenia wrote: In the original context of "whinging pom", it definitely means complaining or whining in Australia. It was applied to those poms who migrated out here, and who were disappointed that things were different from "home". A commonly accepted der

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 08/10/2006, at 12:55 AM, pencimen wrote: Ronn! wrote: Which is where I heard it from. However, if anyone did find it offensive, I apologize, as that was not my intent. I'm not generally oversensitive to this kind of thing and I understand that most people aren't aware that these terms (

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 06/10/2006, at 11:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Anyway - in an ideal world, my disagreements with Republicans would be on policy. But at the moment it's not, it's with the ideology of the current administration and the damaging shortsightedness of that. And the Democrats have been complicit, as

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 05/10/2006, at 9:19 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You really think that I think the Democrats are any better? Hypocrites and liars on both sides. You did leave me with that distinct impression.but maybe I'm j

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 05/10/2006, at 12:03 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Hence my comment about a choice (?) between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. Yep. I get that. It's a depressing thought, really. I'm starting to wonder whether the United States can continue in its current form, or if there's going to be

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 04/10/2006, at 9:22 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Time to kick out the people who have thrived on a policy of fear then, and choose some representatives who value freedom and liberty more than they value power through fear

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 04/10/2006, at 4:16 PM, Ritu wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: I know. I was being funny and throwing rotten fruit at you, metaphorically speaking. :-) :p Meanie! Being nasty and all, and just because I have good taste in books I have good taste in books! I also, simultaneously, have

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 04/10/2006, at 4:04 PM, Ritu wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: So, really, what did you have in mind? Have relatives in high office? That doesn't work, not until they have the same ideas as you. Even then, given that they came up within the system, following the usual routes,

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 04/10/2006, at 3:50 PM, Dave Land wrote: So, really, what did you have in mind? Stand? Support a third option? Create a coalition of like-minded folks? Get involved at a municipal level? Have relatives in high office? Charlie ___ http://www

Re: How religion is destroying America

On 04/10/2006, at 10:03 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: Yes it is. But then I was born in Britain, where haggis, tripe, black pudding and liver hotpot are regulars on the menu. And we have another different interpretation of a word from GB to US; the first definition below implies edibility, but

Re: How religion is destroying America

On 04/10/2006, at 9:16 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: C) Both can be eaten, however: i. Oranges are part of a healthy, nutritious diet. ii. Offal is not - unless you are a vulture. Yes it is. But then I was born in Britain, where haggis, tripe, black pudding and liver hotpot are regulars

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 04/10/2006, at 7:22 AM, Dave Land wrote: When you are not afraid, they can't do anything (except try to terrorise you again). When people hold their heads in memory of the lost, then carry on with their lives, then we've won. I suppose I should have put a smiley face after my comment.

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

On 04/10/2006, at 3:38 AM, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: I've been working on a poem with some friends. Perhaps some of you will appreciate this. We Will Not Be Afraid Our country will be attacked And we will know outrage But we will not be afraid. Whe

Re: PC Software - prices high, little choice

On 03/10/2006, at 10:05 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Oct 2006, at 12:54AM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 03/10/2006, at 8:08 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Every single contact I've ever had with the Mac community has been fanatically hostile (as opposed to the almost pathological helpfu

Re: PC Software - prices high, little choice

On 03/10/2006, at 10:00 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Oct 2006 at 9:54, Charlie Bell wrote: On 03/10/2006, at 8:08 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Every single contact I've ever had with the Mac community has been fanatically hostile (as opposed to the almost pathological helpfulness o

Re: PC Software - prices high, little choice

On 03/10/2006, at 9:01 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Outlook Express is dead. It is replaced by Microsoft Windows Mail and is much more like Outlook than the old Express version. (Matter of fact, let me know how my emails are received by your mail program. I'm interested in knowing if the parsin

Re: PC Software - prices high, little choice

On 03/10/2006, at 8:08 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Every single contact I've ever had with the Mac community has been fanatically hostile (as opposed to the almost pathological helpfulness of the Linux community, for example). Really? *Every Single Contact Ever*? Seems to me you're using hyp

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

On 03/10/2006, at 6:49 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: Debbi who has no confidence in voting this next election, as Colorado has chosen not to have certifiable machines...no, this is not a joke. Or perhaps it is. Request an absentee ballot, and vote that way. At least it's on paper. Charlie ___

Re: Infinities large and small (was Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies)

On 30/09/2006, at 1:43 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/29/06, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, it's the SAME SIZE as each of the first two. THAT'S the one that took me a week or two to wrap my head around. :) No, they're not the same size. I'm sure of it

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

On 29/09/2006, at 12:58 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 28/09/2006, at 4:03 AM, Dave Land wrote: This beautiful woman in her early 80's sat proudly as she spoke. Then she said: "You know, I've lived in America since shortly after World War II. It disturb

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

On 28/09/2006, at 4:03 AM, Dave Land wrote: This beautiful woman in her early 80's sat proudly as she spoke. Then she said: "You know, I've lived in America since shortly after World War II. It disturbs me to see the current leaders talk so much about the dangers of terrorists, and talk so

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

On 28/09/2006, at 7:24 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: What I think has me 'smelling something rotten' are the various other oddities and discrepancies (as others have already listed, frex the Saudis flying out unquestioned AFAIK); I think it is far more likely that 'the conspiracy' (instead of our

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

On 25/09/2006, at 11:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that what Pinker meant was that natural selection explains the presence of useful functions in creatures. All of the other mechanisms exist for sure but to get good and useful doohickeys one needs selection. If he's using "natur

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

On 25/09/2006, at 9:31 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 24 Sep 2006 at 10:55, Charlie Bell wrote: I occasionally say that evolution is a theory in much the same way that gravity is. How it works is a theory. Kind of a mystery, too, which is pretty cool when you think about it. Very cool

Re: Researchers Identify Human Skin Color Gene

On 24/09/2006, at 3:12 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: Oh good. Soon we'll be able to "cure" blackness as well as homosexuality. Let's hear it for progress! If the destruction of the ozone layer is not a myth, maybe it's time to seriously consider curing _

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

On 24/09/2006, at 2:58 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Sep 19, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/18/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just

Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated

On 23/09/2006, at 11:52 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:20 PM Friday 9/22/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

On 23/09/2006, at 7:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: " The relationship between fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not > easily seperated." So is it a fact that evolution occurs because of natural selection or is that a theory? After all the data to support nat

Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated

On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Um, .9* *is* 1. Charlie __

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

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

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

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 tha

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...

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

Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper

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, jdieb

Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper

On 20/09/2006, at 2:31 PM, Ritu wrote: 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:

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >