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 the person who justified war via economics is havi
On 20/09/2006, at 1:01 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 a theory.
I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fac
On 19/09/2006, at 10:24 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
I've always had some admiration for Jimmy Carter, because
his speech about Human Rights resonated quite well here
in Brazil, when we were burying the dictatorship.
But I have just read now that he received bolivian president
Evo Morales - is
On 19/09/2006, at 2:52 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/18/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the basic assumptions
about peer-review in science?
Only for scientists who treat theories as if they were facts.
...'cause there's no such thing a
On 17/09/2006, at 9:12 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
The first thing I want to address is the idea that folks who have the
knowledge needed to demonstrate something is clearly wrong with an
official
report fail to do so out of fear of losing work because they are
lumped with
the "tinfoil hat" peo
On 15/09/2006, at 11:52 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Charlie,
You've turned the whole thing in it's head. Your asking me to
prove support for your position that the official story, du jour,
holds true.
No, I'm asking you for evidence to support your claim that it doesn't.
"The point we a
On 15/09/2006, at 3:29 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John W Redelfs" jredelfs@ wrote:
People extol the virtues of abortion
Not *all* people, Maru.
Not anybody that I know of.
On 14/09/2006, at 8:59 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/14/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John W Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People extol the virtues of abortion
Not *all* people, Maru.
Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage dec
On 14/09/2006, at 8:58 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good question. Where does "devout" become "fanatical"? I think you
may be onto something here.
When the choices of others are involved?
That's a
On 14/09/2006, at 7:26 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Hey, there was a lot of mass and volume to be those structures and
it is little wonder some of it spread out. The point we are all
scratching our heads over is how they didn't topple off to one
side. None of these buildings {though WTC7
On 08/09/2006, at 7:37 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Not quite - agnostics assert that it is not possible to prove or
disprove a deity...
Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.
...whereas atheists disbelieve in
On 08/09/2006, at 5:15 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Bloody cold medication says "don't drink". So I stopped taking it
- >there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D
Well, that's one way to handle it, I suppose. :) Of c
On 08/09/2006, at 3:47 PM, Ritu wrote:
Okay, I can often do diplomacy. So here goes:
I think that agnosticism is the only rational position in this
argument,
that everything else, atheism included, is as much a matter of
personal
wishes and comfort as anything else.
I disagree - atheis
On 08/09/2006, at 3:14 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
The Fool wrote:
E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit
around here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists
On 08/09/2006, at 2:53 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Good question. Where does "devout" become "fanatical"? I think you
may be onto something here.
When the choices of others are involved?
That's a good answer.
Charlie
___
On 08/09/2006, at 2:51 PM, Ritu wrote:
As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all religion other
than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or "point
and laugh" or whatever.
That means that it would be rude to say anything about the notion of
'One and Only True Way',
On 08/09/2006, at 2:20 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
I hesitate to write the following, as while I have been thinking about
this post for some time, the recent thread on "religion" makes this
post
somewhat dangerous. So I'll just say up front that I am not going to
get involved in an atheism vs.
On 08/09/2006, at 2:31 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
I think you are neglecting the possibility that one might actually be
true and another might actually be wrong.
I think he was neglecting it out of politeness, and because a "you're
wrong... no, you are" type series of posts doesn't go anywhere.
On 08/09/2006, at 7:54 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:
I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist
does, or a
least not as much that is correct.
Yes, that's clear.
But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
cor
On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action
would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't
perpetrate upon another.
...unless you've asked
On 07/09/2006, at 8:29 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 7 Sep 2006, at 5:06PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to
having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet
On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having
a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is
just a form of holier-than-thou fo
On 06/09/2006, at 11:31 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish
terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is
understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human
aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the
On 06/09/2006, at 10:33 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Short-term egoistical goals
for theists mean "do good or God will punish you". Short-term
egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder.
Hope that's satire.
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com
On 06/09/2006, at 3:51 PM, John W Redelfs wrote:
I wonder if anyone has two machines, a Mac and a PC?
iBook, Athlon 2200XP based PC currently running XP SP2, Claire's
iMac. Had a dual-boot to Fedora Core 3 but I use the PC for media
storage and Civ and Half-Life and I currently don't hav
On 04/09/2006, at 8:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings
of a spiritual leader.
Now, #4 is consistent with Tom Cruise and Scientology, but it is
also consistent with you and atheism.
And number 3 is also consistent with scientolog
On 04/09/2006, at 6:44 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Really. So Keith Henson is not an atheist? I'd be surprised to
learn that.
Yes, there's allways the odd one. But in my experience, the people
opposing Scientology are in the ratio of arround 20:1
theists:atheists.
Maybe because the famili
On 03/09/2006, at 4:30 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
And you know who fights them? Not your precious atheists, it's
Christians and Jews.
Sweeping statement. And utter bollocks. Your attitude towards atheism
is hard to distinguish from Will's baiting about religion. How about
you *both* coo
On 04/09/2006, at 6:28 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Just wanted to add my belated felicitations. I hope you're
enjoying your honeymoon in Cyprus.
Cheers dude. We're playing "fight the jetlag" at the mo (plus "oooh
it's summer here").
May you have a long and exceedingly happy marriage!
Ta
On 04/09/2006, at 5:58 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 at 5:36, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 02/09/2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the
universe...
...apart from all the major ID spokespeople have said at various
I don't know if you know who Billy Graham is, Charlie. He's the
most famous
American evangelical preacher of the last 50 years.
...and I've seen him evangelise.
A friend of mine is
sending me an email quoting Billy stating that evolution and
Christianity
are fully compatible He fal
On 02/09/2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the
universe...
...apart from all the major ID spokespeople have said at various
times that the designer is God, and a number of them are YECs who
were convinced that pretendi
On 04/09/2006, at 2:58 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:08, William T Goodall wrote:
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote:
It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find
important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove
me wrong
On 01/09/2006, at 11:50 AM, David Hobby wrote:
Thanks, but shouldn't you being doing something else
about now? : ) Best wishes to you and Claire!
Cheers!
I'm sitting with my best man Glyn and a certain Gord Sellar, having a
coffee, and just having a last look at mail before heading off
On 01/09/2006, at 9:52 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 at 18:26, David Hobby wrote:
O.K., if it's purely a money making venture, why all
the wacky UFO doctrine? Seriously, with all that money,
L. Ron could have hired a GOOD writer, who would have
come up with something guaranteed t
Probably won't be about much for a bit as I get married in 8 hours
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 01/09/2006, at 5:19 AM, David Hobby wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
Okay, apparently some people on the list don't know about
scientology. Scientotology itself is a UFO cult founded by a
mentally ill science fiction writer.
Andrew--
No, Scientotology is the belief that "all is science".
On 31/08/2006, at 2:35 PM, Dave Land wrote:
On Aug 30, 2006, at 9:07 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 31/08/2006, at 1:35 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Isn't a cult a subset of "religion"?
Sure Charlie, just as "poisons" are a subset of "chemicals.
Precisely
On 31/08/2006, at 1:35 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Isn't a cult a subset of "religion"?
Sure Charlie, just as "poisons" are a subset of "chemicals.
Precisely - they're all toxic at a high enough dose... ;-)
I don't think the differences are as huge as you do - yes, there are
the indicato
On 31/08/2006, at 1:55 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
What is religious freedom if it isn't that?
That you're, again, deliverately using a cult - NOT a religion
Isn't a cult a subset of "religion"?
Yep. But it is also a subset of 'society' and
On 31/08/2006, at 12:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote:
What's your point? The guy was [allegedly] responsible for forcing
girls as young as 12-y.o. to "marry" older men, giving the girls no
choice in the matter. Are you suggesting that under "reli
On 31/08/2006, at 12:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote:
What's your point? The guy was [allegedly] responsible for forcing
girls as young as 12-y.o. to "marry" older men, giving the girls no
choice in the matter. Are you suggesting that under "reli
On 29/08/2006, at 9:39 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
[hmmm... question: _when_ will E-M become a double planet?
I guess sometime in the next 10 billion years :-)]
At the current rate of lunar recession, 30 million years or so,
according to something i read the other day
Charlie
It seems to me that the real problem isn't religion as such but
ideological inflexibility in the face of rapidly changing conditions.
...somewhat like the current US administration?
Charlie
GCU Or The ID "Movement"
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailm
On 18/08/2006, at 9:26 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Dave and I are laughing out loud... but on the other hand, just
encrypt your
wireless, ya dolt. Too much time on his hands, perhaps.
As he says "I could encrypt it or alternately I could have fun."
Which is awesome... 'cause what are they go
On 10/08/2006, at 10:47 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
As long as you post your answer at some time too!
I'm sitting here trying to write vows. Wedding in 3 weeks. :-o
Good luck! (And I hope the wedding all goes well!)
Cheers Julia.
At the moment, I reckon we've got enough material for um...
On 10/08/2006, at 6:33 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
Charlie said
I like asking questions like this :)
As long as you post your answer at some time too!
I prefer thinking about questions to which I don't have answers :)
Play fair. Your musings count too. Or are you being uber-Socratic?
Char
On 10/08/2006, at 4:33 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
Charlie said:
I'm thinking about it. :-) It warrants a considered reply.
I like asking questions like this :)
As long as you post your answer at some time too!
I'm sitting here trying to write vows. Wedding in 3 weeks. :-o
Charlie
On 10/08/2006, at 4:02 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
David said:
So what, the rest of us don't get to answer it?
Of course you do. I'm just especially interested in what Charlie
has to say.
I'm thinking about it. :-) It warrants a considered reply.
Do you think morality is part of social c
On 06/08/2006, at 12:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
The US has also been a leader in the
crisis in Sudan.
:-o
I'm just going to have to withdraw from this thread.
Charlie
Different Realities Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 06/08/2006, at 7:13 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Modernized now.
Pop culture topicalised now...
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 06/08/2006, at 3:19 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Given the situation, I don't think there was a way to ratchet up
pressure
from what it was. The US was forward deployed and combat ready in
a way
that it wasn't ready to sustain for a year.
Because of the way they ramped up. There was a UN
On 05/08/2006, at 11:34 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
It was not an "error" to overthrow Saddam. Sure, your government lied
to you about the reasons, and by all means call them to account for
it, but overthrowing that sort of unstably dangerous tyrant isn't a
mistake.
It is if you're replacing
On 04/08/2006, at 1:56 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads,
including for
a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with
extended
range."
Ah y
On 04/08/2006, at 9:25 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
"We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads,
including for
a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with
extended
range."
Ah yes. The missiles. That I, and the British Army base I lived near,
were well in
On 04/08/2006, at 9:20 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are
different from men,
premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown
non-human
primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an
adult is,
and just a
On 04/08/2006, at 8:59 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
"If one accepts" - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or
15-week fetus is not an infant or a child.
Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different
from men,
premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown
no
On 02/08/2006, at 9:19 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, you are saying that in 2002, a major intelligence agency
concluded that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles of any kind?
No. You've inverted the statement. The NIE, as well as Tenet i
On 01/08/2006, at 8:45 AM, Brother John wrote:
As a child that raised white mice and rats as much as I did snakes,
I can attest that white rats are much, much better pets than white
mice. Mice bite and their urine stinks something awful. Neither is
true of white rats. Rats actually make v
On 01/08/2006, at 8:20 AM, Brother John wrote:
This is what I was trying to say in another post. We fed ourselves
better, and reproduced more prolifically. So our culture replaced
theirs.
Shooting them may have had an effect too.
It will happen to us if we stop reproducing. We will bree
On 01/08/2006, at 3:55 AM, Richard Baker wrote:
However, it's at least logically possible - or so it seems to me;
Charlie or someone else more knowledgeable might correct me - that
some modern humans are descended from Neanderthals but that the
characteristically Neanderthal genes have
On 31/07/2006, at 11:00 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
We do now know that if Neanderthals interbred with modern people,
there are no traces of Neanderthal genes left in modern
populations.
Neanderthals have no genes in common with modern populations???
Are they from an
On 31/07/2006, at 4:33 PM, Brother John wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Your lack of imagination is unsurprising.
Recently, a cat baiting exercise near my old house resulted in the
poisoning of many pet and stray cats. Including all three of mine.
This was done for "pest control"
On 31/07/2006, at 4:17 PM, Brother John wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Are you a fundy? Do you believe that the earth and heavens were
created in six days approximately 6000 years ago?
No, I think that the "six days" mentioned in the Bible are more
properly thought of as six creative periods
On 31/07/2006, at 3:34 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
To me they are, to others they are an unwanted burden. Still
others are indifferent. How many women in the past were having
babies not because they wanted them but because it was their duty?
Or because their husband/master/owner wanted a
On 30/07/2006, at 11:01 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Richard Baker wrote:
We do now know that if Neanderthals interbred with modern people,
there are no traces of Neanderthal genes left in modern populations.
Neanderthals have no genes in common with modern populations???
Are
On 31/07/2006, at 2:38 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Charlie wrote:
Good start. I'd suggest that's enough of a teaser for now. I'm
going to try to get the book from the library today, failing that
I'll see if they have an unloaned copy in another branch. Failing
*that* I'll see if our bud
On 31/07/2006, at 2:35 AM, Brother John wrote:
The Fool wrote:
From: Charlie Bell
On 30/07/2006, at 1:03 PM, The Fool wrote:
Well if you mean writing. The sphynx is estimated as being 8000
+ years ago.
About 1-2000 years after the domestication of the cat.
"Domestic
On 30/07/2006, at 1:03 PM, The Fool wrote:
Well if you mean writing. The sphynx is estimated as being 8000+
years ago.
About 1-2000 years after the domestication of the cat.
"Domestication"? ;)
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/list
On 30/07/2006, at 4:21 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Charlie,
I've read over RFK's piece in Rolling Stone, " Was the 2004
Election Stolen?" http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/
was_the_2004_election_stolen and it seems pretty damning against an
honest election this last go around
On 30/07/2006, at 9:38 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We don't need to think of a sperm or zygote as "sacred." But
we should consider what we do when we cultivate a sentiment
among us
that babies don't matter
On 30/07/2006, at 2:25 AM, Brother John wrote:
It seems to me that most of the atheists I know are just as
ethical as anyone else, and spend a lot of time thinking about
social responsibility and equality issues.
We have to spend a lot of time thinking about ethics because we're
unluck
On 29/07/2006, at 10:45 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Well, now you've left me confused. Neither a 1-month old infant,
nor a 7-month unborn child are capable of either of those things,
and you clearly consider them to be human. So, there clearly is
something else at work in defining humanity for y
On 29/07/2006, at 12:52 PM, Brother John wrote:
Perhaps it is an overstatement to say that every sperm is sacred,
but human life most definitely is. And if our popular culture no
longer values the sacred, or even understands the meaning of the
term "sacred," we have lost a big part of wh
On 28/07/2006, at 10:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another problem is that members of a species may never have an
opportunity
to interbreed.
That's not so much of a problem - if there are two distinct breeding
groups that are separated, they can be considered separate species
even i
On 27/07/2006, at 9:23 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The definition I gave (interbreding
populations)
Doesn't this definition fail to account for species that reproduce
asexually?
Somebody needs to read ahead before replying... ;-)
Charlie
__
On 27/07/2006, at 7:00 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 02:34 AM Thursday 7/27/2006, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Biologic laws are not like the laws of physics (at least not
superficially).
I've heard of one that *is* like the laws of physics: it states that
the pile of s
On 27/07/2006, at 2:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charlie said:
One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is to ensure the
time
of birth. So that the kid's horoscope is auspicious
And there you have it. :-)
The prize for silliest possible reason? ;)
LOL I'm sure I can thi
On 27/07/2006, at 1:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or
their
new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question:
Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when?
One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is
On 27/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the problems with your mode is thinking is the "by
definition" part.
This is way we used to think about species before Darwin.
...and a long way after. The Biological Species Concept was developed
through the mid-1900s, with mu
On 27/07/2006, at 10:49 AM, Damon Agretto wrote:
How many pregnancies are planned, and how many are "accidental?"
I guess it would all depend on the technology. But whether people
plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their new-age
hippie health classes is irrelevant to the quest
On 27/07/2006, at 10:04 AM, PAT MATHEWS wrote:
I wish you hadn't asked me that. I had a long-time friend who has
been in the hospital with a massive stroke for some time now. The
person in her body is like a sweet, passive small child with
amnesia. I have finally got a gut feeling for t
On 26/07/2006, at 10:43 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote:
From: Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical
twins share a soul?
The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all
accounts, that's even true of conjoined
On 27/07/2006, at 8:20 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Specially if gay men decide to have children. So, maybe we will
have the hellish opposite scenario of the lesbian utopia: a world
where most people are gay men :-/
LOL
Or we'll just have a 50:50 world, where 1
On 27/07/2006, at 8:02 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Some people have c-sections because they can schedule them
round their yoga, or because they need to fit childbirth
into a certain period of the financial year for tax or
government incentive reasons,
The above reasons
On 27/07/2006, at 7:05 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
I also think that the idea that many people have views somewhere
between the
"pro-choice" set of axioms and the "pro-life" set of axioms is
fairly valid.
The debate I've seen doesn't reflect this. Most of it is between
people who
know their
On 27/07/2006, at 3:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes - I'd want abortion to be replaced with transfer >of the
foetus to
the artificial womb. In fact, if technology >progressed so far, I
suspect many people would avoid the risk of >pregnancy and childbirth
altogether.
This seems to be an
On 26/07/2006, at 9:06 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Physical, yes. Biological, no.
Huh? Do you mean what you said, or do you mean "Physical, I agree,
Biological I don't".
Yes - but I think I said that. Didn't I? What did I say?
I wasn't sure, that's why I asked.
The evolutionary pressu
On 26/07/2006, at 8:42 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step,
if they form a separate breeding group from baseline humans.
Yes, and this separate breed will have no males :-P
Species change and branch and fade. That'
On 26/07/2006, at 3:05 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote:
From: Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:15:19 +1000
On 26/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, jdieb
On 26/07/2006, at 1:07 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After all, how can you
propose a new species name for humanity?
Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step, if they
form
a separate breeding group from baseline
On 26/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's something else to being human, and
it's to do with our minds not our bodies.
Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you
avoided the rest. They're u
On 26/07/2006, at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would think that by the standard definition of a species a cell line
cannot qualify. A species is a group of individuals who can or do
interbreed. I
don't know how a cell culture can qualify a species.
They're free living (on culture
On 26/07/2006, at 11:30 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Very interesting ones, but
indisputably human.
You use that word "indisputably", but doesn't the fact that a new
species name has been proposed *by definition
On 26/07/2006, at 9:23 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
That's all I've got time for right now. I'm on vacation (and away
from my computer) for the next four days. I'll get started on Part
1, Modern Montana, when I return. Any suggestions on or off list
are encouraged and appreciated. I'm new
On 26/07/2006, at 3:35 AM, Richard Baker wrote:
Charlie said:
It's been done with other mammals, and I wouldn't be at all
surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric humans out there.
Apparently 8% of fraternal twins are "blood chimerae" because of
cell exchange through a shared plac
On 25/07/2006, at 1:14 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, I'm saying WHAT THEY'RE CALLED is beside the point.
Which I continue to fail to understand. Obviously, some very
intelligent people believe that HeLa ar
On 25/07/2006, at 1:04 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
How terribly disappointing. How anyone could consider a half-cell
to be human is beyond me.
A sperm is not a half cell. It is a highly specialised full cell that
happens to have a half-set of chromosomes. Same for an ovum.
Charlie
__
On 25/07/2006, at 1:40 PM, David Hobby wrote:
How terribly disappointing. How anyone could consider a half-cell
to be human is beyond me.
JDG
You're right. Sperm and eggs would be some of the few cells
that would NOT count as human, since they don't have enough
chromosomes. : )
Jesus m
On 25/07/2006, at 12:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HeLa cells came from a tumor of Helen Lane.
"Helen Lane" was a pseudonym used to protect the patient's identity.
Her real name was Henrietta Lacks.
They are unquestionably human
cells. They have a mutation that allows them to continue to
701 - 800 of 1035 matches
Mail list logo
