Re: Most Dangerous States
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 02:11 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the USA, and much stricter gun control. -- William T Goodall _But_, just to complicate things a bit (I'm an agnostic in this particular debate) it has higher levels of violent crime overall (a fairly recent phenomenon), and a far more homogenous population, with massive underreporting of crimes committed against minorities (i.e. Arabs in France). It's a fact that Europe has lower homicide rates than the USA. If we accept that it actually is a more violent place overall then this is excellent evidence that gun control works to reduce homicide is it not? And I would rather be mugged or get some broken ribs or whatever than be shot dead. Persony I would rather have the lowlifes shooting eachother more and me not be the vitm of violent crime where the perp uses knives and clubs. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why don't you post it? Well, it's more than half a meg Again, I'd be happy to send it to you offlist. :) Just let me know what format you'd prefer. PDF = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: I wrote: No, I didn't forget, I just didn't think it had any relevance in the current discussion. If anything, since California's rate is about the same as Texas and it is listed as less dangerous than Nevada, it falsifies Jan's implication that Nevada and Texas are much safer (or much more polite). I didn't say that, I said that ~I~ felt safer. But as long as we are at it, it wouldn't have falsified it if that had been what I meant. California has the strictst gun laws and yet there are 37 safer states even by their standards. Europe is no shining example either. You said: The way we have criminalized the carrying of a gun shifts that power instead to criminals and makes our society more susceptible to those who would do harm. unless you live in Texas or Nevada. and C) everyone should have a gun. Why? Because if that criminal knew that everyone was likely to be packing, they would not have done what they did. Texas and Nevada have it right. Make the gun be concealed. That way no one knows who is armed and who isn't. It proactively fights crime. The other alternative is to be a society of victims. and Then why do Texas and Nevada have less violent crime? It's clear to me that you are implying Texas and Nevada are much safer because they allow concealed weapons. The last is a statement of fact that you have yet to verify with data. Doug You are correct, The manner in which I worded the statment was missleading. And probably purpousfuly so. What I ment was that ~I~ feel safer in these states, and that these states have less crime now than before consealed carry (actualy this may not be compleatly true, several Motorcycle Gangs have decided to have their war in the Nevada desert and this has increased the crime rather there in the past couple of years.) I do not believe that the benifit of concealed carry can be varified at this point. However, based on the evidence we do have (see Dan's post if you want rows of numbers) and anicdotal evidence I hypothosize that concealed carry reduces crime. It may increase deaths, I don't know. But if I am carrying, then I would feel safter knowing that if someone came up to me and my wife walking home from a movie and tried and take her from me, they would have to deal with Wynona first. The 3 or 4 times that I or family members and friends have had guns pointed at them and their walets taken would not have gone the way they did. Sure, someone might have come out of these situations dead rather than robbed, but that should be ~our~ decision, not some senator who has a 24/7 armed gaurd anyway. Personaly ~I~ would rather be able to relax and walk about without worry that when placed in a situation like this again, that I will at least have a fighting chance. Instead of having my hands tied by some law which does not allow me to leagaly defend myself. Can you honestly say that it is logical, when you know that the criminals do have guns, to make it a crime for law abiding citizens to carry guns as well? Let's take the stigma away, let's use an analogy. lets change this to the ability to make money. The analogy is: The government officials have it, the criminals have it, but you are not allowed, least you be a criminal. Is that right? Is that a free society? No of course it isn't. So how is leathal force any different? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: irregulars: how to split c++ class between multiple files
--- Joshua Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not in this particular case. All the functions are related / use the same class variables etc. Also sometimes speed and efficiency are more important than ease of use. Very rarely - what's going to happen to the code in 6 months when you've forgotten how half of it works? Is that trade-off worth it? Programmer maintenance time usually outweights processing time. It is extremely unlikely that the overhead of method calls (even vtable calls) are the performance bottleneck in any realistic project. About the only time you need to even think about those are when you're writing the tight inner loop of a 2D/3D/Sound rendering core - and with standard APIs (OpenGL, DirectX, etc) there's very little need to worry about that. Even then, one of the projects I'm working on for fun is a 3D engine for the PocketPC (no DirectX or hardware acceleration) which is entirely C++ and makes heavy use of code broken up into multiple classes. Using such C++ features as the inline directive, const variables, templates, metaprogramming, etc. you can completely eliminate even the overhead of function calls and object derefencing. The trick is to make the compiler do it, not the programmer. Compilers are VERY good at optimizations these days if you have enough hints in your code. Besides, trying to optimize without doing profiling is crazy (apart from obvious things like using good algorithms). It's well known that you should write the code first and optimize later, since what you think might be the bottlenecks and what actually turn out to be the bottlenecks are very rarely the same thing. Joshua Well said. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: shoelaces, concentration, stingy reactions andRe:dyslexiaandtinted lenses
--- Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Sonja van Baardwijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, I knew it was out there. Does that mean your link data base is finally operational? LOL. No, I just happened to save that particular link cause I liked it. Also because I wanted to be able to tie my shoes better. And to know the correct way to teach my kids! Not this weird way they are teaching in schools now... What weir way? Are they teaching the make two loops and tie them together way? That way makes a very loose knot. BTW it is easier for most people to switch from grany to square if you change the way you tie the first overhand instead of the way you loop and follow. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: shoelaces, concetration, stingy reactionsandRe:dyslexiaandtinted lenses
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Everyone (not just those with aus etc.) are effected by foods. it's not just autistic kids who get high off of bread. It's just that the autistics are more dialed in, more granular, more sensative. Granular? I'm not sure what you mean by this in this sentence. More detailed or granular sense. I'm not sure what you don't understand. Autistics are often capable of telling much finer differrences. The idea is that such people might have dificulty teling the difference between stemuli at a larger granularity becouse their sweet spot is gaged much finer. If most people could not see green and but you could, you would have a more granular sense than they. You might also have difficulty nameing which colour yellowish blue or bluish yellow is. Although if you get very specific this example is not consistent with the way humans see colour, it is the simplest way to describe the consept. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heinlein quote
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: I'm not claiming to agree with Heinlein, but I will note that people are very friendly in Texas and not so friendly in New York. G I think there are cultural differences between Texas and New York besides just the gun ownership thing that account for that. :) And I'm not sure how much is a difference between friendliness per se, and how much is the laid-back-ness of each place. Or some kind of difference in the expanded definition of friendly in each place. And there are cultural differences between Texas and California, and the culture in Texas agreed with me a bit more when I visited both states on one trip, and that's how I ended up going to school in Texas. (But I will note that in *both* states I've had a random aging hippie come up to me and start a conversation which ended shortly after my gently refusing the offer of a joint.) What's wrong? You got some problem with Juke? Or you just don't like movable parts? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Etymology of the word dang ( was Author question)
--- G. D. Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 05:53:18PM +0900, G. D. Akin wrote: P.S. Dang! I went off-subject on my own post. Do you know the etymology of the word dang? Nope, but it was something I could say in situation my dad would use damn and I wouldn't get in trouble :-) I use the Farscape words now exclusivly. What the Frell is wrong with this peice of Dren?! http://www.savefarscape.com Join the strugle for good sci-fi TV! = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re:_Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of price_discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IOW, you (pl.) say you don't prefer it if ONLY criminals carry weapons, you (pl.) just want to change the law so everyone who carries a weapon is by definition a criminal . . . I didn't say that, and I didn't say anything about criminalizing guns. Guns are already criminalized. It seems like you are not reading what I wrote, but instead what you think I mean based on the way you have clasified me, and your experiences with this discussion in the past. It is my belief that there are relatively very few individual who can demonstrate an actual use for a personally owned gun Every individual can demostrate a actual use for a personally owned gun. It balances the tactical power, the threat of injury or death one individual can have over another. Without ANY guns that power would be in the hands of thowse who are larger and/or more willing to accept minor injuries...etc. If everyone has a gun, that power is balanced. The way we have criminalized the carying of a gun shifts that power instead to criminals and makes our society more suseptible to those who would do harm. - hunters, target shooters, for the most part - and we can devise ways to enable them to own guns while trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who really should not have them. The ONLY ones who shuold not have guns are criminals. But with the laws the way they are in most states ONLY the criminals carry guns. I don't think it's unreasonable or unconstitutional to try to do that. You want to impose even more restrictions and therefore shift the balance of power even more to favor the criminal. I am unaware if organized crime employs a lobby, but you could always apply. (tong frimly planted in cheek) = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:57:24AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: Why do you think that is? Good debating technique? A) Debates are activities to be won or lost. - You claim to not care about -winning- or -losing- as long as the information is correct. B) Debates are won or lost not on the correctnes of a position, but on the abilities of the debaters. - You claim to not care about winning or losing as long as the -information is correct-. C) You have contradicted yourself and therefore any arguments made based on the information you have provided are invalid. D) It would appear that even if your ~technique~ is good. It is not sufficient. Jan Toung pushed forward, mouth open, eyes rolled up, head shaking and bobing from side to sidemaru = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
statistics gatheing techniqes vary and therefore are not comparable. --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (And, oh yes: Texas does not have less crime than other states.) For instance, the murder rate in Texas in 2000 was 5.9 http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/stattabs/crimeintexas/00CrimeSection_U.pdf While the rate in New York for the same year was 5.0 http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Be careful what you shoot at whom....
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/08132003_nw_paintball.html In Pittsburgh, 3 teenagers were shooting paintballs from a moving vehicle, and someone living there decided to return fire with real bullets Julia who believes that paintball guns belong in *controlled* environments No need of that kind of controll, simply make *any* projectile weapon goverend by the same laws as firearms. Fireing paintball guns at unprotected non-participants is just as bad as fiering bottle raocktes at people, and that is AB in most states. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: shoelaces, concentration, stingy reactions andRe:dyslexiaandtinted lenses
--- Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] And to know the correct way to teach my kids! Not this weird way they are teaching in schools now... What weir way? Are they teaching the make two loops and tie them together way? That way makes a very loose knot. That's it. It definitely doesn't stay very well or for very long. Don't know when my daughter will transition to real knots! A few years ago I tought my wife (and the rest of her family) to tie a loop and follow square knot. They actualy didn't ~like~ laced shoes becouse of the shaby knot they were using. Teach her now. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One can kill someone in a split second of rage with the other, the former takes at least a bit of obvious effort. I have never understood this. Many males have been in that Rage state, especialy dufing puberty. If you haven't, I can tell you it's rather scarry. The destructive urge is so greate that it must be released in some way. However, ones logical thinking abilities are not effected. You may become hyper angry, but sugesting that you also loose your cognative abilities to diferintiate right from wrong seems to me to be rediculous. Just becouse someone enters a rage state, does not mean that they do not understand that picking up a firearm and using it is going to result in anothers death. If the person has the where withal not to use the firearm in a non rage state, then the same is true for the rage state. Just becouse some people who have made the dicision to commit murder and decided to do it with a gun afterwards blame it on rage does not mean that anyone could slip into a state of rage and do something they would not otherwise do. It may be easier for such people to blame whatever they do in a rage on the state they were in and the endocrin coctail they were subject to, but it is not the state's fault. You still know what you are doing, and you still control your actions. This -fear of rage- argument for not keeping a gun about is BS. People who are not going to pick up a gun and kill someone out of anger, are not going to do it either if that anger turns to rage. People who are likely to pick up a gun and kill somone are going to find some other way to do it even if they can't have guns. Granted, they are less likely to succede. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heinlein quote
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there are cultural differences between Texas and California, and the culture in Texas agreed with me a bit more when I visited both states on one trip, and that's how I ended up going to school in Texas. (But I will note that in *both* states I've had a random aging hippie come up to me and start a conversation which ended shortly after my gently refusing the offer of a joint.) What's wrong? You got some problem with Juke? Or you just don't like movable parts? I don't *smoke*. Period. I have a problem with being offered something that I'm supposed to burn in order to receive whatever pharmaceutical effects it may offer. Dito, just trying to be punny. Moveable parts are good. Parts that don't scream at you when you try to move them the way they were designed to move are even better. :) = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heinlein quote [was: Politics]
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Actually, they are Heinlein's words, and the full quote is: An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. -Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond the Horizon, 1942 I do in fact agree with Heinlein on many things. And while we have some agreement on this issue, (we would be on the same side of the arguement here). I do not exactly agree with this statement. This statemente is totally false. Just look at any armed society - like a slum, or an area under the control of a terrorist group - and check if people are polite there. Exactly. There is no balance of power there. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heinlein quote
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. -Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond the Horizon, 1942 This statemente is totally false. Just look at any armed society - like a slum, or an area under the control of a terrorist group - and check if people are polite there. Are you saying Texas isn't polite? wfc? One example is enough to falsify Heinlein's statement. I gave two. Once again exactly! That is exactly why I disagree with him (among other issues more subtle) but you are in fact seeming to be in agreement that a lack of power balance is a bad thing. No one on this list (that I know of) was agreeing with Heinlein. The subject of Heinlein cam up becouse some were mistaking a different argument for Heinlein's. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States--43 times
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's certainly a good way to do the study. But one should control for the amount of crime in the neighborhood as well, since it could well be that gun ownership is higher in high crime neighborhoods. But it is also true that people's fear of crime does not always have much to do with any actual crime rate. A lot of people still think of New York City as dangerous even though it has one of the lowest crime rates of any large city in the USA, and has had for almost a decade. People who live in low-crime areas but hear or read or watch a lot about crime elsewhere may have an exaggerated fear of crime in their own areas. Conversely, basic human denial being what it is, people who live in more dangerous areas, in order to cope, may persuade themselves that things aren't really that bad. It's very hard to do reliable science outside the laboratory where you can control conditions, or at least when dealing with animate objects. I don't think anyone really knows the deterrent value of a handgun. BINGO! Now look at your own arguments in the same way. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:20 AM 8/11/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you made the claim that an armed society is a polite society. You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies. Sorry I never made that claim. I did not and do not believe that an armed society would be any more or less polite. Those are your words. Actually, they are Heinlein's words, and the full quote is: An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. -Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond the Horizon, 1942 I do in fact agree with Heinlein on many things. And while we have some agreement on this issue, (we would be on the same side of the arguement here). I do not exactly agree with this statement. While the implication may have a true value, the right side is not necisarily caused by the left. While I may believe that the first sentence is true I would never make that statement becouse of the assumed association to the second sentence. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:40 am, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls The average homicides per 100,000 persons per year over 1998-2000 in the USA was 5.87. In England and Wales (where guns are pretty much unavailable) the rate was 1.50. In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the USA, and much stricter gun control. what about home invasion and rape? You were the one who wanted homicide numbers because they are reliable. What is considered a homoside in GB compared to the US. Where is the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates? What about sidewalks and death from falling? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/11/2003 1:14:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would only hold true if the criminals were aware of who did and who did not own guns ahead of time. I think the gist of the argument is that legal gun ownership deters crime in general and there are stats that support this. But nothing is ever going to grind crime to a halt. I think this type of discussion tends to get people thinking about the extremes as opposed to the general tenor of the realities of life. There are many many millions of guns in the US, yet only a few thousand or so deaths in a given year. A small percentage of deaths by any cause. Its a mountain made out of a molehill. Except the mountain is usually not fatal and the molehill is fatal. Detering crime is good but the cost may overwhelm the benefit if even a statistically small number of innocent individuals (in particular the owner or a family member is killed). After all the death rate in the mole hill is %100. If we had effective gun control then the death rate would go down for both the criminals and the victims. You don't know that. You have not shown sufficient corolation to the stats to say that with any certinty. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:04 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:00 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States The molehill is not 100% fatal. Many people are shot each year and survive. And many more don't. Your chances of surviving are extremely greater if you don't get shot at all. Sure, and you don't die in traffic accidents if you don't hit others cars. But more people are killed by cars every year than by firearms. And, many more people lose money in traffic accidents than from crimes every year. So, maybe we worry to much about crime in general. The real question is the relative merit of stopping crimes by arming oneself with a gun in the nightstand vs. the demerits of that action. Indeed, if you talk about assaults, both physical and sexual, one is much much more likely to be assaulted by a family member or a friend of the family than by a stranger. Incest is far far more prevalent than sexual assaults by strangers assaulting a woman on the street; and is overwhelmingly more likely than someone breaking into a house to rape a woman. I realize that folks talk about these folks being monsters and needing to seriously punish them. But, if the numbers used by people working with victims and survivors are right, roughly 1 in 20 men (maybe 1 in 25) are pedophiles. I would have to strongly disagree with this. This is sexist feminist crap! Even if you run off and get stats for this you will have to show what the definition is. Do 1 in 20 hetero males find 17 year old females attractive? I would argue the number is much higher than just 1 in 20. What about 18 year old males who find 14 year old females attractive? Are these people pedifiles? Where do you draw the lines? If we are talking about post pubecent males who find pre-pubesent females attractive, I seriously doubt the numbers would be high enough to make enven a percentage. If we further restrict it to only those who act on it then we would have even lower numbers. It is certain that pedifiles exist and they certainly have serious problems that society needs to find a solution for. But to sugest that so many men are like that is sexist IMO. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: shoelaces, concentration
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:27 PM 8/14/2003 -0700, you wrote: --- Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] And to know the correct way to teach my kids! Not this weird way they are teaching in schools now... What weir way? Are they teaching the make two loops and tie them together way? That way makes a very loose knot. That's it. It definitely doesn't stay very well or for very long. Don't know when my daughter will transition to real knots! A few years ago I tought my wife (and the rest of her family) to tie a loop and follow square knot. They actualy didn't ~like~ laced shoes becouse of the shaby knot they were using. Teach her now. My normal footwear I leave tied all the time, just push down on the back heel and step out. But I'll learn the new knots, nothing sucks worse than boot laces coming undone and becoming muddy or worse frozen. I have a friend, he can never keep his shoes tied...but he also has dyslexia, severely. Never knew there was a connection. There isn't. That was how this thread got started. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States--43 times
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Minette wrote: ... Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified.A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known. And the best way to show how this is true is to show how the % of people who are victims of crimes and own guns are much lower than the % of people who simply own guns. If owning guns is as much of a deterrant as this author suggests, than one should see a significantly lower crime rate for households that have guns vs. households that don't. That's certainly a good way to do the study. But one should control for the amount of crime in the neighborhood as well, since it could well be that gun ownership is higher in high crime neighborhoods. BINGO! = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: This -fear of rage- argument for not keeping a gun about is BS. OK, what about the fear of alcohol-induced stupidity? Sometime since my son was born, maybe it was last year, a guy in Bastrop shot his buddy dead. Both were drunk. The shooter was trying to keep the other guy from driving drunk, so he shot at the pickup truck, and his buddy was killed. Other drugs would have similarly bad effects on judgement, I'm sure. Durgs and guns do not mix any more than cars and guns do. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: shoelaces, concetration, stingy reactions andRe:dyslexiaandtinted lenses
--- Sonja van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Sloan II wrote: Sonja van Baardwijk wrote: But seriously, your verb tense there is perfect. Thank you. I don't know about the colored lenses links, but the page about the family with the Aspergers kid was very interesting. I've suspected I might have Aspergers (or however you'd put it) since Michael first mentioned it several years back, and I went to the links he gave. You wouldn't happen to have some of those for me, now would you? This adds more evidence to that, because my ears also turn bright, glowing red the way his do when I eat something my body doesn't agree with. I suspect that one of my legs is getting longer then the other here? 8) Didn't even occur to me. guess mine is longer than yours.. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of pricediscrimination
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought it was people who fly the Confederate flag who were more likely to not only own firearms but to have a rifle on a rack in the back window of their truck . . . I Can Say That Because I Live Here Maru Well, the people who are going to have the strongest feelings one way or the other about the Confederate flag are more likely to be in the south, where general gun ownership is higher than it is in, say, the northeast. If you took *everyone* in the US who have very negative feelings about the US flag and calculated the percentage who own guns, I bet it would be smaller than the percentage of gun-owners among those who have very negative feelings about the Confederate flag. Julia That's a tough call, to say in general gun ownership is less in the northeast. I think if you throw out Philly, New York City and Massachusetts, the percentages would pass the south. And please, throw out all three. After Atlanta do any southern cities have restrictive gun laws? Don't know if you are considering Florida as part of the south. I'd actually bet there are more gun owners who have negative feelings about the US flag than the Confederate flag. I just don't think there are that many who have any strong feelings about the Con flag, period. I think that relating the two is rediculous. In much the same way as relating poodle owners to persons who have marigolds in their front lawn. Or cell phone users to people who own a back-hoe. No matter what laws get passed, no matter who can leagaly cary a gun and who can't Criminals will allways own and carry guns. A much more interesting statistic would be the perentage of non-law-enforcement people who carry a conceled weapons who are also non-criminals. Personsly I would prefer there to be more non-criminals with concealed weapons than criminals with concealed weapons, but proponents of gun control laws seem to prefer it if ONLY criminals carry weapons. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fightthe evil of pricediscrimination
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (And no, I'm not going to purchase a gun until I feel a lot more comfortable around one than I am. And generally, the rattlers just kinda park themselves in the road, so there's time to get the ammo out of the separate locked box, load the gun, and go back out to do it in. And I've heard that rattlesnake tastes like chicken.) That gun belongs on your hip fully loaded. You live in one of the SANE states that allows LAW ABIDING citizes to balance their own power with that of the criminal. Do you think that rapists and murdererd keep their amo locked in a seperat box? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Guns in the Home
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/Guns_in_Home.pdf Many people who own guns keep them primarily for hunting or recreation; many keep them for self defense. This is particularly the case among handgun owners.3 Although many gun owners keep a gun in the home for protection, studies have shown that guns are rarely used for this purpose4 and that the risks of keeping a gun in the home outweigh the benefits. In fact, in homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns.5 The risk of a family members suicide is increased by nearly 5 times in homes with guns; the risk of suicide is higher still for adolescents and young adults.6 Having a gun in the home also increases the risk that incidents of domestic violence will result in homicide. Family and intimate assaults involving firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than nonfirearm-related assaults.7 So what your sayig is, that if you are in a family where domestic violence is more likely to occure, don't buy a gun becouse someone might end up dead? If you beat you wife, don't buy a gun becouse she might kill you with it. If you are prone to deep depression don't buy a gun becouse it will make suicide easier. What is the usual case? Is it gun toting wife beaters killing their wife, or gun toting beaten wives defending themseleves? It makes a difference. Are these numbers counting suicide by gun or all suicides? If it's all suicided is it taking into acount the likelyhood of attempted suicide? Is this saying that guns are more effective means of suicide or somehow the existence of the gun in the home is causing more people to commit suicide? Was there a control study on the likelyhood of homicide, suicide, etc. for other housholde items? Was the rate higher for housholds with stake knives? to those that only had case knives? Baseball Bats? wide screen TV? low flow toilets? staked washer and dryers? Icecream? rat poison? insectiside? lawn mowers? fire places? oven mits? suround sound? florecent lighting? dogs? cars with and without political bumperstikers? Has anyone done a statistical study on the number of homes which were invaded where the residents were harmed and unharmed and the relation of an easily accesible gun? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:44 am, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Homicides per 100,000, average per year from 1998-2000 Dallas TX - 20.42 New York NY - 8.77 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls If you are going to link to a site, it has to actualy exist. Sounds like an interesting article. too bad it can't be read. It is a spreadsheet. Are your MIME types set correctly? Why don't you post it? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/3/2003 12:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, I think both of them are very important figures, because they are extremely influential. One is the single most cited living intellectual. The other edits the most important magazine of th Left. They influence opinion. But they are also indicators of opinion - and the fact that people who believe what they believe are so adulated by a fragment of the political spectrum - and so completely immune from criticism from _their own side_, as opposed to from the other side, tells us something really important Chomsky is one of the most important thinkers of our time but it his contributions to linguistics not his political views that have influence. Ironically his contribution (that humans are born with an inate ablilty to create and use language - a language learning module if you will) This very concept is now being chalanged. Not the spoken ability, but the assumption made by chomsky et. al. that writen ability is also inate is now under an increasing amount of attack. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:47:01PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: By worthwile I assume you mean worth wile. (you left out a space.) Actually, I left out an h, not a space. I should have written worthwhile. And I see that the answer is, no. And talk about a lack of courage. You wouldn't dare kill-file me on-list because you know you might miss something that would make you look silly, and I stopped reading here. I probably won't read much of what you write from now on, Jan, since it is such a waste of time. I don't killfile anyone (at least not yet), but I do tend to delete many posts from some people without reading them as I scan subject and author lines. Feel free to make me look silly. I would never do that. You do such a good job of it all on your own. Of course you read the rest of that post why else would you claim not to have. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about if we change Jan's statement to something like: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? No. I would want them to demonstrate that they know how to handle the gun Ok why not. and have them pledge to keep it safely locked up except when being used for hunting, target practice, etc. So the only people you want carrying guns is criminals? You want everyone else, every law abiding citizen to be at the mercy of gun toting criminals? I would also require them to purchase insurance against any misuse of the gun - by them or by anyone else. And I would increase the penalties for misuse of guns, even accidental. You have to have insurance to operate a car, and a license - surely we can and should require no less for guns. Please! Insurence is a scam. It's simply a way for people in power to take money from other people. Don't get me started on insurence. They are running good doctors out of buisness, steeling from every motorist..*sigh* I would agree with non profit insurence. where no one can be turned down for any reason -no fault- flat fee. But not what we have now. It's rediculous. They take more from you in 2 years than what the polocy is even worth, and they make so many clauses and rules that they never end up paying you anyway. I had a perfectly good 1981 Fiat Turbo Special Eddition worth 16k. I had full insurence (over 1k a year) did everything I could to take care of the car, keep it legal, and pristeen. An guy in a Honda Civic ran a stopsign and totaled it. I got 2k only. They wouldn't even let me keep the car. They gave me 2k, fixed it up, and sold it for 16k. And the law backed them up on it every step of the way. If that isn't THEFT then I don't know what is. My friend is a doctor he had a patient (who was terminal anyway and he was tring only to prolong the patience life) die on him in the OR. The family suied for mal-practice and LOST. But never mind that they lost, the insurence doubled. The next year his office partner had the same thing happen, once again the insurence went up by more than double. So in 2 years they pay more than 4 times the insurence. My friend quit and is no-longer a doctor becouse to afford it he would have to take more patience than he thinks 1 doctor can (or should) handle. His ex partner now refuses to operate on anyone except those he is certain will survive the operation, even when the patient will die without the operation. Many middle class people would love to own a high end sportscar. It isn't that they can not afford to BUY the car, it't that (becouse if insurence etc.) they can no afford to OWN the car. The Elite see to it that they stay eliete? Many middle class families in California would like to buy a home (not a condo, a _home_). It's not that they can't afford the home, it's that they can not afford the ~insurence~ they are required -by law- to have on the home. So insted they are forced to own a townhome or condo. Besides which insurence company is going to insure gun ownership? It's not going to happen, and if it does, the cost would be preventative. Another case of the elite resuving all power for themseleves? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:13:49 -0500 Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then there is the matter of accidents. Simple solution, teach a class in gun safty in school. Replace the 10th 11th or 12th year of english those clases are a waste. 1) I didn't consider any of those classes I took those years to be a waste, personally. Neither do I. In fact, the foundation of writing skills and language analysis they established probably allow me to do my job effectively. An observation: Just because a required class may not help you personally doesn't mean it's worthless. For example, I may never use the trigonometry that I learned about in HS in my daily life, but it's essential to everything from construction to chemistry. I wasn't saying to do away with all 3 years, just one. Besides no one made you take 12 years of triginomotry, or 12 years of art history. or 12 years of colour theory. Why do you think that 12 years of english is necisary? Did you really learn anything in 10th,11th or 12th grade you didn't already know in 9th? The only difference in these classes was the publisher of the book, and the words on the spelling tests. Granted for me, the spelling tests were like automatic Fs due to my genetics, which I did find teribly unfair. But still, for everyone else the rest of the information was 3 years of re-run. How many times can you be tought to diagram a sentence before you just don't care anymore. How many times can you go around a class reading shakespear aloud? Is it really necisary to subject students to Beowofe 3 years in a row? How many compare-contrast papers can one write? The way we teach English in this country is akin to spending a smester a year teaching 1st 2nd 3ed and 4th graders how to tie shoes. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: _Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_ofÂ_price_discrimination
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: C) everyone should have a gun. I don't want one and neither do a substantial number of people in the country, possibly approaching a majority. Are we all relegated to second class status because we refuse to carry a gun? Sorry Jan, but that's just loony fringe stuff. Admittedly. So now that you understand the concept, maybe you can suggest a solution. I don't have one other than requiring the guns to remain hidden so that no one knows who has one and who doesn't. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Will give US accidental gun death statistics for years through 2000. For 2000 Number of Deaths 776 Population 275,264,999 Crude Rate 0.28 Age-Adjusted Rate** 0.28 Note that deaths are usually quoted as a number per 100,000 people, which is the case above. For comparison, below I've listed some other death rates (mostly from NSC's web page). Note that the rate for deaths from falls is 20 times that quoted above for accidental gun death. I don't have a number handy for homicide by gun, but that would be an interesting addition to this table. deaths per hundred thousand per yearcause - 870U.S. death rate (total for all causes) 200coronary heart disease 16motor vehicles 12suicide 8homicide 6falls 1.4 fire 0.4 air or space transport 0.3 struck by falling object (NOT meteorite!) 0.02 lightning 0.003fireworks 0.1 struck by small meteorite Looks like we need sidewalk insurence before we bother with gun insurence. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: shoelaces, concetration, stingy reactions and Re: dyslexiaandtinted lenses
--- Sonja van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: I also feel that it is necessary to note that there is a lot of quackery around learning disabilities. FREX The Gift of dyslexia is a non scientific book with absolutely ridiculous notions like dyslexics shoes come untied more often, and that dyslexic are clumbsy. There are studies by ~real~ scientists such as Shaywitz shoing that this stuff is nonsense. Well, about those shoes. ;o) I remember that a while back I read about some research into tying shoe laces. It showed that there are many ways to tie your laces but there are only one or two ways that will result in laces that will not continuously come undone. Well that, and it helps if you knot the loops of your toddies shoelaces once you tied them. I don't have the link to it, but if it exist maybe a benevolent listee might provide it for our amusement. :o) Just passing on the info from real scientists. The thing you don't realize is the links you provided refernce reasearchres the dyslexic comunity knows to be quacks. There are hundreds of dyslexics out there who are being told that their problem is simply solved with red glasses, that they are clumsy, that they are inferior, that they need special help. It's all BS. One does not have to be autistic to have a heightened sense for such things as flickering lights or shrill electronics. The average person can only see flicker below some frequency (can't remember what it is just now) and the above average person can only here between 20 Htz and 20k Htz. There are individuals who can see and here better, and they are often distracted in learning environemnts that contain such noise. Thank you for the information. I personally have exceptionally good hearing but found that I can shut it down or more like totally screen my surroundings out while I work. It usually results in me being very concentrated, the more so, the noisier the environs I'm working in get. People have found that it then takes a considerable amount of effort to get my attention once I'm in that state. So I sort of use the noises around me to focus my thoughts and become very concentrated. Something I found totally impossible in a silent room, where I would jump at even the slightest of sounds. You are one of millions of individuals on this planet who are lucky enough to have autistic tendencies. Use your powers of concentration wisely. Recognize those like you, and those deeper in do not suffer from a defect, they are not broken, they do not need help. well, other than help being treated as an equal in society. It is ridiculous to suggest that a student should wear dark red glasses when the lighting could simply be adjusted. Especialy if the student is autistic and is having a difficult enough time socialy anyway. Reading this (and Julia's response) I feel that I have to ask if either you or Julia for that matter read or even glanced at the sites I pointed to? The reason I'm asking is because f.i. information like below is on one of the sites and both your responses seem to be oddly out of sync with this and other things mentioned there. from http://www.read-eye.connectfree.co.uk/dyslexia.htm Once again these people are quakcs. If you contact them as a concerenc=ed parent of a shild with autism or dyslexia they will try and convince you that all your childs problems are optical and can be fixed with red glasses. Visual stress is a condition that often contributes to reading difficulties in adults and children. The condition is related to light sensitivity in disorders such as migraine and epilepsy. It causes distortions on the printed page when black print contrasts sharply with a bright background. So, DONT USE FLORESENT LIGHTS, and DON'T TURN THE LIGHTS ON BRIGHT!!! Most public places have the lights on so bright and use floresets becouse they are cheeper. Somewhere along the line people bought into an old wives tale that dim lights are bad for your eyes. actuly bright lights are. No one needs dark red lenses, what they need is the lights to be turned down. Visual stress is often a big part of the problem in Dyslexia, No more so than it is for anyone else. remember these people use the term Visual Dyslexia and then drop the visual so that they are just saying dyslexia they are still not talking about the same thing. And if they are they are lying. but can also affect other poor readers and may cause eyestrain and headaches in good readers. etc. disclaimer I didn't say, nor did I attempt to say that this in any way applies to Jan, nor that it was _the_ solution to cure any or all dyslexic and/or autistic people, nor did I say that every dyslexic can become a normal reader by putting on dark red lenses, nor did I say that every dyslexic is autistic or that every autistic person is dyslexic, or a combination thereof. Nor did I as far as I know in any
Re:_Politics,_was_[L3]_Re:_fight_the_evil_of _pricediscrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No matter what laws get passed, no matter who can leagaly cary a gun and who can't Criminals will allways own and carry guns. Right, and other criminals will always commit crimes, so why have any laws at all? A much more interesting statistic would be the perentage of non-law-enforcement people who carry a conceled weapons who are also non-criminals. Personsly I would prefer there to be more non-criminals with concealed weapons than criminals with concealed weapons, but proponents of gun control laws seem to prefer it if ONLY criminals carry weapons. No we don't. We don't want anyone to have a gun who doesn't have a good reason to have one. And we don't feel it is impossible to cut down on the sheer extraordinarily huge number of guns circulating in our society. Difficult, especially given the grinding political power of the NRA, but why should it be so easy to buy a gun in Virginia that criminals drive down from New York to stock up on guns and then drive them back up to New York to sell? Nobody really needs a gun. Seriously. Soap Box So, you would prefer the largest, and strongest to be the only ones who can weild lethal force? Or do you beleive that everyone else should practice martial arts? You are not going to change human nature with restrictive gun laws, you are only going to change the balance of power. Right now our laws are broken. Like it or not -some- humans are violent. That is just the way it is. And as long as that is the case there must be some way to level the feild. Right now our laws are broken. Guns level the feild. A big strong angry man is no match for a small frail woman with a P99-40. Give them both a gun and it's equal odds. Criminals don't like equal odds. They would rather not commit the crime than do one that has a 50-50 chance of failure. Like I said our laws are broken. Only the criminal has the wapon and they can be rather certain that most people are not carrying a gun, so they have the upper hand. It's like our laws tell them, here are a bunch of sitting ducks, have fun! Look at all the babbies with candy! And of course that is auful and those people are terible, but you can't run and put your head in the sand and pretend that it isn't like that. You can't pretend that we live in an evolved STTNG society. We don't! We live in a Wild West society, only now, only the bad guys have the guns. A gunless society, a society that didn't need to have power balanced would be a wonderful society to live in. But unfortunatly we don't live in such a society, we live in a society that ~Requires~ something to balance tactical power. Only, our laws have taken that away from us, our laws have shifted the balance of power to benifit the criminal. One might say that they don't want to live in a society where everyone is carrying a gun on their hip, but what would not be realized is that is the exact same society we DO live in, only the guns are hidden, and only the _chriminals_ have them unless you live in Texas or Nevada. A society where everyone was carrying a weapon would be a society where the week and the meek would have equal power when they walk out of their front door. It would be More peacefull and provide for More equality. I beleive that for a weaponless society to work, we must first experience have tactical equality. /Soap Box If you absolutely have to have one (and I don't know why you would), you should have to demonstrate that need, demonstrate proper training in its use, be required to own insurance against any possible misuse of your gun by you or by anyone else (thus giving you a powerful incentive to take good care of it). I'm not talking about hunters or target-shooters, but they tend to be much more responsible about taking care of their weapons than the gun nuts symbolized by Phil Gramm, who, when asked how many guns he had, replied, More than I need but not as many as I want. Guns are dangerous. Pure and simple. It may not be possible to get rid of them entirely, but that should be our society's goal. Meanwhile, let's settle for what limitations we can get. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 05:52:03PM +0530, Ritu wrote: Nope. Orders don't begin with 'Try'. Had that been an order, it would have read: 'Listen more and argue less...'. Bzzzt. Try again. Orders can begin with try. Try means to do something but not necessarily expect complete success. Try this can certainly be an order. Your listening, but not, listening. Why else would you quible about the clasification of a sentence. Does it really change the infomration? Do you asume yourself to be in such a leadership position here that you get to dictate the way subscribers construct their sentences? You know, trying to comunicate with you reminds me an aufull lot of being presented with Lisa. At first is seems quite amazing, but then, a bit annoying, and finaly, simply too predictable to bother. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
If someone doesn't join or continue in a discussion
because they're unwilling to face your acidity, that
is a loss to the list. You have politely corrected
people in the past, and that enhances the list -
I think this is one of the most important statemts made on this topic.
Whether Yo like it or not, whether it is correct or not Erik you ~are~
comeing off as if you wish to win an argument by andy means necisary.
You have said many times that this is not Ego Driven and that it is others
ego which make it apear that way to them. You may be correct about this, but
in the end it doesn't matter. What does matter is the perception.
Believe me, I would not even be saying anything along this line if I didn't
know this particular trait from both sides. And that is in fact why I suggest
to you that you do in fact respond from Ego at times. Not usualy, but enough
to make even me recognize it. And that (even if I do say so myself :) is
saying quite a lot. { you have so much fun presenting ambiguous logical
systems so I figured you would have fun with this paragraph...second level of
humor intended }
Aditionaly, when youyour claws come outYou tend to shut down
discussions that might have been interesting otherwise. And that has a
greater negative effect. At some level you have to understand that you can
contribute constructivly or destructivly.
In hindsite the thread for which this post is titled was efectivly shut down
by me taking something a bit too seriously and being far to hasty about
comeing to that conclusion. My actions, while intending to be constructive,
actualy were destructive. So I am not acusing you of doing anything others do
not do. However, in some small way, you must also share some of the
responsability for that, (say %10 or so) becouse it was your doing which
created the atmosphere. Even if it was not your intention to do so.
So, take a step back and look at the bigger picture. I know I am cetailny
trying to.
=
_
Jan William Coffey
_
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dyslexia and tinted lenses
--- Sonja van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last week I've seen a BBC documentary on a single parent family with 7 kids. Of these 7, 4 kids (the boys) had various hereditary disfunctions/diseases/handicaps. One thing they had in common was that they all had autism in one form or another, with dyslexia being just one of the problems that having autism can result in. (not sure this is gramatically correct or even makes sense :o)) I found the documentary give a rather refreshing view on autism and how this can affect family life. (See www.bbc.co.uk/ouch, the Jackson family for info) But the reason I mention this at all is that there was something about amazing improvements of the dislexia for these boys by using differently coloured lenses. from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/tvradio/autism/specs.shtml Some people with visual dyslexia have found that altering the light in a room using specially tinted lenses can lessen their reading difficulties. There are a number of links to other sites mentioning this as well, especially http://www.visualdyslexia.com/ I feel that it is important to note that visual Dyslexia is an overloading of the word dyslexia and actauly has nothing at all to do with ~real~ dyslexia. I also feel that it is necisary to note that there is a lot of quackery around learning disabilities. FREX The Gift of dyslexia is a non-scientific book with absolutly rediculous notions like dyslexics shoes come untied more often, and that dyslexic are clumbsy. There are studies by ~real~ scientists such as Shaywitz shoing that this stuff is nonsense. One does not have to be autistic to have a hightened sense for such things as flickering lights or shrill electronics. The average person can only see flicker below some frequency (can't remember what it si just now) and the above average person can only here between 20 Htz and 20k Htz. There are individuals who can see and here better, and they are often distracted in learning environemnts that contain such noise. It is rediculous to suggest that a student should wear dark red glasses when the lighting could simply be adjusted. Especialy if the student is autistic and is having a difficult enough time socialy anyway. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ray Ludenia wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you. Actually, having a chip on both shoulders is better. It keeps one balanced. Choc-chips are good. OK, how is the balance between a chocolate chip on one shoulder and a butterscotch chip on the other, if they're of the same mass? :) Hmmm? And al this type I had the wrong sort of chip. I just have the one Motarola 68040 on the left shoulder.Maybe it's abut time to upgrade. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: What about Assumes that anyone disagreeing with their position is either ignorant, stupid or deliberately obtuse.? What about, Acts passively agressive and disingenuously politically correct? That was a very insitefull response erik, but are you not interchanging the consepts of science and art? What about personifies rediculousnes and drags out a thread to a slow and painfull death. oh wait, scratch that. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bad Spelars
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:07:35AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: I've been following the mislabled thread on spelling and dysxia with some interest. My spelling is horrid, Apparently your reading comprehension isn't so good either, Dan. So, my unsolicited advise to you Jan is that, by Erik insulting you as he has, Your statement suggests that you totally misunderstand the thread you are discussing. Maybe you should try to pay attention to the meaning of the threads you are replying to, Dan, rather than only looking at things superficially (like you are accusing me of doing w.r.t. spelling). By the way, it is interesting to note my reply when I was corrected for using theory when hypothesis would be more precise, and Jan's reaction when a certain phrase he used against someone else was turned back on him. I see what you mean Dan. O, and Erik, yes we did turn phrases around a couple of times. The point of that was to express the need for tolerance, and to express that everyone is wrong once and a while even about things that the usualy correct others on. I never did thank you for helping me to make that point, or for correcting my error in the process. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) You deliberately continue to taunt people, even when it's clear that they don't understand your sarcasm. There aren't any dummies reading Killer B's, someone once said. They'll get it eventually. 2) Your stated wish for a society that 'promotes pleasantness' for as many as possible (IIRC) is in direct contradiction with your frequently hostile on-list writing No, it is not. I am not a hedonist. I did mention pleasantness in my description, but my viewpoint is more nuanced than you imply here. 2a) This confuses people who might like to consider you a friend, and contrasts with your efforts to be helpful, frex in answering technical questions, or genuinely funny, as in amorphous blobs. Good! There's nothing wrong with a little ambiguity and contrast. You know Erik, you had me strangly and firmly on your side with all that talk about passive agressiveness and the like. I was almost taking you seriously. But then. Explain how the responses you have made above do not fall firmly in line with passive agressiveness. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 05:33 PM 8/2/03 -0500, Horn, John wrote: From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Loo-tin-at Ker-nal. Ah, heck. I can't spell Lt either. Unlike the old joke about engineer, I never learned how to spell it correctly despite being one. One of those words that I've never been able to get down. Kinda like caffeine, I spell it 1,3,7-trimethyl-2,6-dihydroxypurine then I don't have to remember whether it's ie or ei . . . vacuum and torture. (Spell check caught those!) One of the results of writing religious satire has been that I finally learned how to spell sacrilegious correctly i.e., *not* sac- + religious by reading the comments I receive in response to some of my submissions . . . And I allways thought that sacrilegious people were the ones who prefered paper to plastic or vice-a-versa (which I also can't spell). = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bad Spelars
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:46:48AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: O, and Erik, yes we did turn phrases around a couple of times. The point of that was to express the need for tolerance, and to express that everyone is wrong once and a while even about things that the usually correct others on. I never did thank you for helping me to make that point, or for correcting my error in the process. That's not necessary. By the way, I think we have a different idea of what is meant by tolerance. I didn't intend to make any point about spelling when I started that thread (my point was obviously about that other phrase which has a million uses :-) , but as it turned out I did (and do) have a little something to say about spelling and tolerance. I DO tolerate bad spelling. By that, I mean that I continue to read posts by people regardless of whether their spelling is 99% or 75% or whatever. If I couldn't tolerate it, then I would killfile people who make a lot of spelling errors. I think that would be silly, it is just spelling, not a big deal, I would rather think about concepts than worry too much about spelling. However, I don't think tolerating something means not mentioning it. I got the impression that you felt that I should not bring up the topic. And we apparently do disagree about how a computer can be used to aid in spelling (my test of a phonetic spelling program found that it could guess the correct spelling with high probability and it gave a list of words with brief definitions so the correct spelling could be easily chosen). Although I am certainly capable of figuring out what is meant in posts with 25% misspellings, it does slow me down considerably to read such a post. Likewise, Jan, I think you are capable of using a good computer program to improve your spelling, but it would also slow you down (and we apparently disagree on how much). Anyway, I don't think it is intolerant to discuss this. As you may have noticed, no topic is sacred to me. If you are unable to tolerate this quality of mine, you COULD always killfile me. :-) No Erik I am not going to do that. No matter howunpleasant...some may find your ...nitpicking... you do not have a tendency to be incorrect. not that you are not, but it isn't a majority of the time. Anyway, we do disagree on quite a bit here on the spelling issue, but that was not what I was talking about. I was referring to earlier posts. We seem to be turning ones arguments back on each other quite a bit. However, you use of the particular phrase we a bit redundant and ridiculous. You could have mearly(sp?) stated the point you were trying to make and been done with it. I could say that you were in fact being something quite similar to passive aggressive, only not in much of a passive style. And that, more than any spelling issue is what really annoyed me. It just took me longer to realize that was what I was responding to. btw. I spent about 10 minutes spell checking this. I still can not find a spelling for mearly that the checker will accept and so I gave up. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 01:03:06AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Explain how the responses you have made above do not fall firmly in line with passive agressiveness. Explain how they do? I don't see it. If you don't see how There aren't any dummies reading Killer B's, someone once said. They'll get it eventually. and Good! There's nothing wrong with a little ambiguity and contrast. are not 100% in line with passive agressivenes then I really don't know who to begin to explain it to you. From past experiences I also know that you will pick apart my explination until you have exosted my (or anyone elses) intrest. And then go on believing yourself to be in the right when no one else does. So why don't we just skip to that point now and save ourselves the hassle. let me just say though that purpously being ambiguous for any reason other than humor or flirtation is generaly precieved as a form of PA. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Now, would anyone like to actually talk about the article for which this thread is titled? Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: About the article or the sidetrack? About my new subject line. This sub-thread isn't titled for any existing article. :) I figured we could write our own as a collaborative effort, maybe. And to answer all the questions which I cut, I was *not* thinking about you specifically about any particular one, except maybe the chip on the shoulder, and you are not by *any* means the only one to display such here. Sorry if you took it personally -- I didn't mean for you to do so. I was just taking examples of the most negative and thread-derailing sorts of behavior I could recall in the past couple of years or so. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l 5) Improperly taking threads personally. :) = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
--- Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: It is, however, important to know that %20 of the world population is far enough to my side of the axis to be labled dyslexic. Where does this statistic come from? Sally Shaywitz M.D. http://www.writersreps.com/live/catalog/authors/shaywitzs.html There are researchers who disagree with shaywitz but as far as I know, not on this point. If you read her book and her papers, you may notice some contradictions to many of the fine detials, but that is usually the case. She seems to have the big picture right, but is missing the insite of the the experience. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hubble's Days Are Numbered
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/hubble_future_0306731.html Despite pleas from a parade of astronomers that NASA consider extending the life and capabilities of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the U.S. space agency appears unlikely to change its plans to deorbit the space borne astronomy platform in 2010. Frelling Dren! = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
--- Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: And before anyone misunderstands me, -NO- I don't want the poor Indean national to have to work 80 hours a week for 1/4 the pay eaither. And -YES- I would like him to be as gainfully employed as me. Indean? You know, Ritu, if you are trying to get under my skin, you are doing a damb good job of it. Should we start discussing your own personal flaws? Do you really want to make it persoanl? becouse we can do that. Go ahead and try me. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 02:01:52 -0700 (PDT) --- Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: And before anyone misunderstands me, -NO- I don't want the poor Indean national to have to work 80 hours a week for 1/4 the pay eaither. And -YES- I would like him to be as gainfully employed as me. Indean? You know, Ritu, if you are trying to get under my skin, you are doing a damb good job of it. Should we start discussing your own personal flaws? Jan, I know that you've been hashing this out with Erik (unpleasantly), but please consider that it is perfectly possible that Ritu has not read that thread and isn't aware that you're dyslexic. Personally, I wouldn't assume someone was unless they told me. I regularly skip threads completely here I find it impossible to keep up. (I'm now 591 posts behind.) I'm sure that others do the same. If it were me, I'd give Ritu the benefit of the doubt. Jon Indeed. I did possibly act in too hasty a manner. It is, however, important to know that %20 of the world population is far enough to my side of the axis to be labled dyslexic. The inability to spell properly in an illogical system such as English should never be used for ridicule, especialy not to adress ones inteligence. In fact, since my kind is over-represented in the list of mental achievers, the inability to spell English is more likely a sign of high, or at least highly unique, intelagence than it is of low or cripled intelagence. The very act of ridiculing, or even admiting to being able to recognize misspellings suggests that the person is from the %80 of the population that is more likely to be unremarkable. So, Ritu, my sincerist appologies. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jon Gabriel wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:31:30 +0100 It's not as bad as another list where I am 41359 behind... Yeah, I gave up on one list when I hit 25K unread posts. The only mail folder I have that's anywhere near approaching that sort of unread-ness has a number of different lists filtering into it, so I can console myself that I'm not *that* far behind on any individual list. (Not sure just how bad it is, but I got through all the posts from 2002 in there sometime in April, and just haven't gotten to reading it much since then.) I simply pick threads that I think, from the title, might be interesting. However, A quick check of the threads that I have posted on will show that nearly every one is killed when someone attacks me for misspelling. How Unfortuanate, especialy for those who started the thread in hopes to have a real discussion instead of a flame war centered around one listmemebers -uniqe way of processing- (or even disability if you like). I am unsure how many people are actualy on this list, but given that %20 of the population is like me, (perhaps not to my extream, but still), and even though this list is centered around an author of fiction, an is infact and -E-MAIL- list, I should still not be the only one. I know that dyslexics tend to shy away from e-mail lists, and you can imagine why. If everytime they have anything to say on a list they are confronted with attacks on their ability to spell, then they probably would prefer to simply stop participating. This is also very unfortunate. Well, sorry, I don't give up that easy. At the same time I can get a bit testy. Can you blame me? When I am attacked for spelling and not for content I get the impression, as I am sure many do, that the attacker doesn't like what I have to say, but can find no flaw, or angle for dispute. Or more likely they are unable to read phoneticaly, and so never arive at content. Whatever the reason, it is getting rather annoying, and I am starting to feel like an oppressed minority, so STOP IT! Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this thread is titled? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Now, would anyone like to actualy talk about the article for which this thread is titled? Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: About the article or the sidetrack? 1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point takes the *extreme* position in the direction of the disagreement. Uh? hmmm? I don't remember doing that, why do you say that? 2) Assumes that everyone else thinks the way they do, and has the same strengths and weaknesses, as well. I most certainly never do that. you must be talking to someone else?...bafeled. 3) Has a chip on the shoulder about some particular issue. Ok, that shew fits. Yes it seems that I do, but you know, most of us do don't we? (The Human most of us in addition to the Dyslexic most of us). If every time you made a post on this list you were acosted by the spelling police, you might have a chip on your shoulder as well. Wait, let me make it more clear, what if every time -you- made a post, your comments (whether they be agreed with or not) were ignored, and instead someone steped in with some snide dig on your [gender]? Or any other [feature] you posses. Wouldn't you have a chip on your shoulder after a while as well? You know, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you. That's all I have so far. Anyone else? (Of course, that doesn't cover *subscribers* so much as *participants* -- and you don't really participate much if you're 6 months behind, do you?) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is, however, important to know that %20 of the world population is far enough to my side of the axis to be labled dyslexic. The inability to spell properly in an illogical system such as English should never be used for ridicule, especially not to address ones intelligence. Jan William Coffey This'll probably make Jan feel worse, but a neurologist friend of mine says that I'm a textbook case of someone who is mildly dyslexic - that's not a formal diagnosis, but I guess a neurologist is qualified to give an expert opinion. So there's probably more than one on the list. Why would it make me feel worse? Because I spell worse than anyone else? I always do, I am on the extreme end of the axis. What does tend to irritate me is when people point to someone who is mildly dyslexic and use them as an example of someone with dyslexia who has learned to spell. And then make the leap to say that I, and other dyslexics like me are lazy. That would be like pointing to someone who is hard of hearing and saying that since they can hear a little bit, that all deaf people would be able to hear better if they just tried harder. Let me put it this way, If anyone can tell me exactly how they remember what the proper spelling of words are, then I could learn it. Not just how you learned, but the mechanical process you use. It is highly unlikely that anyone will be able to do this. The part of the brain most use to remember proper spellings is automatic. It works in much the same way that your hand will recoil from a hot surface. And that same part of the dyslexic brain doesn't do the same thing. It's not damaged, it does work, it just doesn't do that process. The non-dyslexic doesn't require language to follow a logical or organized set of rules because the part of their brain they use to process the language doesn't work that way. The dyslexic requires a logical set of rules. They don't remember disjointed facts, they remember systems, abstractions, and connections. If the rules are broken (as they are in most natural languages), then no system will fit, and what you get is a somewhat chaotic response. I don't feel sorry for myself or bad because I spell poorly, I simply don't believe that %20 of the population should be subject to harassment because of their genetics. If %20 of people have (at least some) difficulty with the way Language is constructed, and yet do not have difficulty with any other system, then it is language, and not the dyslexic which is broken. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is, however, important to know that %20 of the world population is far enough to my side of the axis to be labled dyslexic. The inability to spell properly in an illogical system such as English should never be used for ridicule, especialy not to adress ones inteligence. Jan William Coffey This'll probably make Jan feel worse, but a neurologist friend of mine says that I'm a textbook case of someone who is mildly dyslexic - that's not a formal diagnosis, but I guess a neurologist is qualified to give an expert opinion. So there's probably more than one on the list. Dan is dyslexic. When he's writing by hand, he'll write the letters in a word in the wrong order sometimes -- but he figured out how to compensate by moving the position of the writing instrument back and forth so the word comes *out* spelled correctly. Transposing letters is not what happens when someone is dyslexic. It is most gernelay a case of the brain working faster than the hand can write. While this is generaly a -feature- that dyslexics are more likely to have, the reason that they spell incorectly or have dificulty reading has very very little or nothing at all to do with word or letter order, or word or letter orientation. Most dyslexic children do not at first understand that letter orientation in 2 demensions is important. But this dificulty goes away as soon as the 2d-ness of letters is explained. That view of dyslexia is, in part, what leads to much confusion. The real dificulty has to do with phenomes and the representation of those phenomes. I helped create the following example for a learning center. It is intended to help non-dyslexics understand how a dyslexic views the system of symbolic language we use. It is for most a very frustraiting puzzle, and while I can not show it in this format with the colours that were intended, and while the lack of colour leaves the puzzle a bit open, I think you will get the idea. These letters represent english sounds, and corospond to a colour which will be used as the key. j - orange sh - red i - bluee - purple l - green r - yellow i - brown u - white v - black n - aqua s - pink t - baby blue oo - bright green the sentecne reads: [orngeish red] [bluish purple] [yelowish green] [tan] [very dark blueish green] [pink] [baby blue] [bright green almost white] [green] [purpleish blue] [cream] [very dark greenish blue so dark it is almost black] Translate the sentence into english. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective list-subscribers
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Now, would anyone like to actually talk about the article for which this thread is titled? Hm. After a bit of thinking, I have: 1) Automatically assumes that anyone disagreeing on a particular point takes the *extreme* position in the direction of the disagreement. 2) Assumes that everyone else thinks the way they do, and has the same strengths and weaknesses, as well. 3) Has a chip on the shoulder about some particular issue. That's all I have so far. Anyone else? 4) Jumps into a thread with highly opinionated and/or confrontational responses without having read most of the previous responses. Once again I am assuming from the context that you are addressing me specifically. so in response. I am generally not very opinionated, in fact I am very comfortable running through an issue in a state of flux. Making points from all sides, and changing my running meeter of sincerity. I.E. my opinions (like many on this list BTW) don't stay the same from day to day, and seldom fit nicely into the box. Confrontational? hmmm? Likely to be disagreed with maybe, but confrontational holds a connotation that I have that response because I am looking to start a fight, or enjoy argument for argument's sake. And that just isn't the case. Without reading all of the posts Well I sometimes do get behind and try and catch up and jump in the middle of something, but I also generally do read all of the posts up to the point where I am responding. The posts which come afterwords are future posts to the ones that I am responding to, even though they have already been made. If you read the list in linear fashion this could be construed as you say. However, if you read it in thread fashion, then you would see that this it is not the case. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:29 PM 7/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is, however, important to know ...dyslexia... And if your spelling is that bad, and clarification is asked for -- at least you know that someone wants to understand your point better, and will appreciate the clarification once you give it, so be as gracious as you can. (Being gracious is not a strong suit of some folks here; it's one thing I know *I'm* working on improving.) And, FWIW, whenever I ask Jan for clarification, it is because I really didn't understand which may very well be more my fault than anyone else's but really want to know. As long as we are on the subject - French words give me the most difficulty. to the point that I often try and abbreviate rather than phoneticize. To answer your question: Loo-tin-at Ker-nal. I was referring to the guy who wrote the article for which this thread is named. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
There are dangers there. Take these seven factors and turn them around. Some of them will not sound so pleasing once you get under the surface and down to the WHY the Lt. Cln. addresses. A highly effective society could also emplode with tyrany. What kind of life are we willing to have where we work all the time and never play. What happens when those at the top realize that they can tap and use these 7 failures to their advantage? What happens when all of the -real work- is farmed out to Indea, China, and Mexico? Where will the middle income family be to buy all those electronics and software? If all tangible goods are produced in other countries, how will the Americans afford to buy all that stuff? They Won't but that wont matter to the most wealthy becouse they don't care who buys the goods, just as long as someone does. You may complain and contradict this by saying that it is just like the issue with women entering the workforce. I agree that any subjugation of any group is wrong. And on principle I agree that women should be, and inherently are, equal. However, the emergant property is very troubeling. I do not wish to be 70 and working long hours every day. What kind of life is it where you get out of bed go to work, leave work, come home and go directly to bed? Many do that now, and are proud of it. They are nothing but drones doing the bidding of those who spend most of their day on the gulf course. I look at it and one word comes to mind. That word is slavery. No thanks! That is NOT Life or Librity, and certainly NOT the persuit of happyness. And due to the very fact taht education in these other places simply is not what it is in the US, you get a lower quality product. You get product that fall apart, or do not work as designed. Or worse only product that has a complexity low enough to be built in a waterfall fasion rather than thought through and perfected. While I personaly agree with the Cln. on every one of the 7 points, the underlying issue (the 8th habit) is much much more troubeling. The 8th habit is [ Intrest by society for the individual to maintain a high quality of life.]. --- Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This paper was written 5 years ago The Seven Factors These key failure factors are: Restrictions on the free flow of information. The subjugation of women. Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure. The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization. Domination by a restrictive religion. A low valuation of education. Low prestige assigned to work. http://denbeste.nu/external/Peters01.html The best quote IMHO: The failure is greater where the avoidance of responsibility is greater. In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, oil money has masked cultural, social, technical, and structural failure for decades. While the military failure of the regional states has been obvious, consistent, and undeniable, the locals sense--even when they do not fully understand--their noncompetitive status in other spheres as well. It is hateful and disorienting to them. Only the twin blessings of Israel and the United States, upon whom Arabs and Persians can blame even their most egregious ineptitudes, enable a fly-specked pretense of cultural viability. Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: However, the emergant property is very troubeling. I do not wish to be 70 and working long hours every day. What kind of life is it where you get out of bed go to work, leave work, come home and go directly to bed? Many do that now, and are proud of it. They are nothing but drones doing the bidding of those who spend most of their day on the gulf course. I look at it and one word comes to mind. That word is slavery. Depends on the individual and the work. I can cite one case that's probably *extremely* out of the ordinary where a 70-year-old, laid off and eligible for a pension, took the pension and spent the next 10 months trying to find *another* job in his field, and didn't admit he was probably never going to have such a job again until near the end of those 10 months. (And it's not as if he couldn't have afforded to retire 10 years earlier.) Julia You misunderstand me. That's not what I am talking about. I would love to be working and productive at 70. However, I don't want to be unemployed becouse I cost more than some shlup in Indea who will work 80 hours a week for 1/4 the cost. And what is more, I don't want to work 80 hours a week. I would, after all, like to be alive so that I can be working and productive at 70. How about you? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
--- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: However, the emergant property is very troubeling. I do not wish to be 70 and working long hours every day. What kind of life is it where you get out of bed go to work, leave work, come home and go directly to bed? Many do that now, and are proud of it. They are nothing but drones doing the bidding of those who spend most of their day on the gulf course. I look at it and one word comes to mind. That word is slavery. Depends on the individual and the work. I can cite one case that's probably *extremely* out of the ordinary where a 70-year-old, laid off and eligible for a pension, took the pension and spent the next 10 months trying to find *another* job in his field, and didn't admit he was probably never going to have such a job again until near the end of those 10 months. (And it's not as if he couldn't have afforded to retire 10 years earlier.) Julia You misunderstand me. That's not what I am talking about. I would love to be working and productive at 70. However, I don't want to be unemployed becouse I cost more than some shlup in Indea who will work 80 hours a week for 1/4 the cost. And what is more, I don't want to work 80 hours a week. I would, after all, like to be alive so that I can be working and productive at 70. How about you? And before anyone misunderstands me, -NO- I don't want the poor Indean national to have to work 80 hours a week for 1/4 the pay eaither. And -YES- I would like him to be as gainfully employed as me. It's not about US verses Them. It is about keeping US jobs in the US and about rewarding loyal citizens for that citizenship and productivity which has made us greate. If you want one world governemnt then fine, but that should mean that they (that all) should get all the protections we in the us are having taken away from us daily. Until there is a world government Corporations who got where they are through the work of the US citizen should not then be allowed to take those Jobs elsewhere. They recieve tax breakes specificaly becouse they are expected to use those tax breaks to create more jobs here in the US. If instead they create those jobs in other countries, then they are steeling from the US taxpayer. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stargate: Atlantis
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:04 AM 7/28/2003 -0400, you wrote: Read about this briefly in TV Guide today and found some stuff online. Most of the stuff online is dated 2001, but this article seems to be more recent... http://makeashorterlink.com/?D19B42865 Some older stories about this http://www.gateworld.net/news/archive/spinoffnews.shtml Are you posting to the correct forum? I thought this was a political message list. ;-) Well, it is ..of sorts. There are many people who feel strongly enough about the Farscape debacle and the issues SG1 has had with funding from Sci-Fi as well as many more issues with SFC (for your reading pleasure the soapbox portion of this message has been excluded), that they are refusing to watch and -new- series on Sci-Fi. I'm one of those people. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Arrgh!
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bryon wrote: I think it'd be more fun to mount a jumbo AC fan on the side... :-) As long as either your hard drive or you fan motor are magnetically shielded well enough... :-) I have two computers that get used most frequently. One is a Clariion audio computer which is not the latest grates, but runs quite for studio recording. It has 1 (ONE) fan and never has heating problems. 845 chipset 2.2 Ghz. You cn't even tell that it's on. The micropone however still picks up a lot of noise so I wired keyboard, mouse, 2 monitors, audio breakout cable, midi switch cable, usb, and firewire to wall outlets and the computer sits in an un-airconditioned cclosed loset with soundproof lyning. The other machine is a game machine with a 2.4 Ghz HT (C) 12 fans total, radon 9800 pro with component hdtv video out via a dvi to component converter. 895p chipset, Giant aluminium case. The thing sounds like an air conditioning unit. My next project is to make the vieocentric computer more quit so I can actualy use it in a Qubase network. Even being on a differnt floor and the other side of the house form the studio I can't have it on while recording. Water cooled is definaly a possible first step. Anyone have any other ideas for keeping the video card cool? Anyone know of a 450W power supply with a quiet fan? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Arrgh!
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:36 PM 7/26/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bryon wrote: I think it'd be more fun to mount a jumbo AC fan on the side... :-) As long as either your hard drive or you fan motor are magnetically shielded well enough... :-) I have two computers that get used most frequently. One is a Clariion audio computer which is not the latest grates, but runs quite for studio recording. It has 1 (ONE) fan and never has heating problems. 845 chipset 2.2 Ghz. You cn't even tell that it's on. The micropone however still picks up a lot of noise so I wired keyboard, mouse, 2 monitors, audio breakout cable, midi switch cable, usb, and firewire to wall outlets and the computer sits in an un-airconditioned cclosed loset with soundproof lyning. The other machine is a game machine with a 2.4 Ghz HT (C) 12 fans total, radon 9800 pro with component hdtv video out via a dvi to component converter. 895p chipset, Giant aluminium case. The thing sounds like an air conditioning unit. My next project is to make the vieocentric computer more quit so I can actualy use it in a Qubase network. Even being on a differnt floor and the other side of the house form the studio I can't have it on while recording. Water cooled is definaly a possible first step. Anyone have any other ideas for keeping the video card cool? Anyone know of a 450W power supply with a quiet fan? Um, one in a different room? to claify it's 875p chipset not 895. and the computer is, as I said (but perhaps not in a way that was understood) the loaud comuter is in a comleatly different room on a differnt level of the house. Still it's so loaud that I have to turn it off when recording (upstairs in a different part of the house). I tried getting a quiter power supply, but it simply heated the case to the point where the heat alarm went off. I'm begingin to consider how long ata cards can be made. put the computers in the basement and the run the drives etc. up to the house :). = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Arrgh!
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 03:36:28PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Water cooled is definaly a possible first step. Anyone have any other ideas for keeping the video card cool? Anyone know of a 450W power supply with a quiet fan? I think the ultimate in quiet and powerful would be to build a soundproof box to put the entire case inside. Of course, soundproof (plexiglass and foam box would work) probably also means thermally insulating. So you have to find a quiet way to get the heat out of the soundproof box. One way to do that would be to run two pipes or hoses through the box for coolant, with a big heatsink inside connected to the coolant. Then you have the problem of creating a quiet recirculating cooler. Or you could put the recirculating cooler outside the house, like a central air conditioning heat exchanger. Or if you don't mind using a lot of water, you could just run cold water constantly through the box and down the drain. If you believe that propa.just kidding :) The Carillion audio computer is just that soundproof case. They use a very very quiet fan and as you say below, a couple of steps back from the state of the art, so that there are less thermal issues. My neigbot built a supper overclocked computer but to keep it fan he had to run an industrial fan on the case. The fan was the same size as the case. He then tried to build a a water cooler for it with a fishtank pump. The pump wonder ful design, supper neat to watch it go, but the pump was louder than the industrial fan. He is considering putting the pump in the basement or garage and pumping the water from there. I want to go the other way and move the computer to the basement and run wireing up to the house. I don't think ata cable will have that kind of reach though. Anyone know? Or you could just buy CPUs and graphics cards that are about 2 steps down from state of the art, they are usually more optimized for low power/low heat production. Then you could design a system that doesn't need forced air cooling at all (like many notebook computers before the P4). -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How we were hoodwinked
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/international/worldspecial/20WEAP.html?pagewanted=1th exert: In the fall, as the debate intensified over whether to have inspectors return to Iraq, senior government officials continued to suggest that the United States had new or better intelligence that Iraq's weapons programs were accelerating information that the United Nations lacked. Provide a transcript that does not have cridbile backing. Alied intelegance is considered credible. But still your missing the point. I just can't see how an intelegant person is hoodwinked by this rediculous propoganda. The REASON we went to war is simple. Let me lay it out for you ONE MORE TIME, so that you might understand. 1) Iraq attacked it's neighbor Kuait. 2) War ensued in which the US others stoped Iraq but agreed to an end where by weapons they could build were restricted, and inspections would be caried out. 3) Iraq through out inspectors. (a violation which by the argeements for the scease fire the US et. al. had every right to reingage!) 4) Iraq tried genocide. 5) US and others set up NO-Fly Zone to keep Iraq from Genocide (this policing costs the US billions of dollars a year.) 6) Iraq advance weapons programs which were spoted by intelegance. 7) Weapon development sights were bombed. 8) Weapon development in Iraq went even further underground. 9) 911 10) Afganistan 11) with the world in a new configuration continuing an indefinate seig on Iraq is no-longer an acceptable plan. 12) Iraq is given opertunity to end seig peacefully, by allowing inspectors to return and coperating compleatly with inspections. A major part of which is to declare all weapons. An amnisty for illegal weapons is given if only they are declared. The result of not following this agrement ( a very leanient one given (3)) is a reingagement of hostilities or war. 13) After Many more US troops are lined up on the Iraq border (see again (3)), Iraq agrees to once again allow inspections, and agrees to be %100 forthcomeing. 14) Iraq blatantly attempts to hide weapons and weapon parts. Not the least of which were rockets that could fly beyond the prescribed limit. 15) Since Iraq was in breach of the agrement war was once again restarted. These are the facts. Clear and simple. The Majority of US voters understand this, agree with it, and respect our governemnt for taking the actions they took. The kind of WMD they lied to us BS comeing from the leftist propoganda machine does nothing for the cause of the left. Instead it not only looks rediculous, but insults the intelegants of the American voter, and angers the american voter that such a twisting of facts would be attempted. The fact is that there was no debate, there was not intensification. Our representatives Democrat and Republican alike voted together on this issue. The only thing that could be called an intensification was when France first signed and agreed to the ultimatum given to Iraq, and then refused to back it up with action (as they said they would do) when Iraq broke yet another agreement. The only reasonable explination for their actions is the assured loss of income they would experience from illegal buisness dealings between their country and Iraq. Don't even get me started on Russia and illegal ~weapons~ sales such as night vission goggles. You may post rediculous propoganda on some sites where the members have short memories and can be perswaded easily to remember only twisted vesions of recent history, but I would hope that here on a list full of very intelegent people, memories are not so short, and facts are not so twisted. And yes you can certainly go back and fill in point (0) with: 0) The US backed Iraq and trained Iraqies to fight Iran. But if you do you will have to also add (.33) and (.66) .33) Iraq used chemical and biological weapons against Iran. .66) The US stoped supporting Iraq. get it strait. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Death of Saddam's Sons
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd hate to start a war of our own, but was this *really* necessary? Just pondering different points of view.. JJ Your particular objection to what happened being? What point of view that objected to what happened to those two pieces of trash has any moral relevance? I only hope that Saddam has some time (but not too long) to know that - as he did to so many thousands of others - his own family has been destroyed. Because it looks like justice is coming for him soon as well. Do you honestly believe, after what he has done to family members in the past, that he cares for his family in such a way to be devistated, or even morn over their death? You give him much more credit for having a sane human side that I do. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How we were hoodwinked
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:17:37AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: But still your missing the point. I just can't see how an intelegant person is hoodwinked by this rediculous propoganda. Since we are being snippy...I just can't see how an intelligent person could post writing like this. It would seem to me that if someone knows that their spelling is poor, they would take care to either not post when they are upset or to run their writing through a spell-checker before posting. I can't see how an intelegent person would redicule someone for something they have no control over rather than addressing the information. Spell-checkers do VERY VERY LITTLE to actualy correct spelling. Most of the time they do not even provide a spelling which is phoneticly simmilar to the desired word. Even when they do, they provide too many posibilities, all of which must be looked up in a dictionary to figure out which is actualy the correct one. This is increadably time consuming and if I were required to do this it would limit my participation in any discussion to the point that it would not be fesable. I was not upset then (but I am now). There is absolutly no reason I should be required to spend an hour constructing a 2 minut post. Your bigotry realy angers me. I am certain that the list moderators do not whish to limmit equal participation in this list by excluding participants by race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, or disability. I am also certain that they do not which to place restrictions on such individuals as to make their participation infesable. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How we were hoodwinked
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who said anything about restrictions? As far as spellcheckers, I can't see how an intelligent person is hoodwinked by this ridiculous propaganda. I do not hav ethe time, or fel that I should be expected to run everything through a spell checker. If as a fellow list member you choose to treat me as a friend, then I am certain you would not want to force me to spend so much extra time that my participation would be infeasable. I will give you the benifit of the doubt and suppose that you do not understand that some of the processes your brain does automaticaly mine does not. And that that you do not understand the reprecussions of such differences. I guarantee you that I am often quite frustraited with non-dyslexics becouse the things my brain does on automatic they must strugle with. However, I show them patience and acceptance. If you wish to be a friendly list-member then I am sure you would want to do the same. If you wish to further this discussion then please do so off-list as I am certain no one here really cares to continue reading such personal attacks. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How we were hoodwinked
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as it taking an inordinate amount of time to run an email through a spellchecker, I can't see how an intelligent person is hoodwinked by this ridiculous propaganda. Now your just being a jerk. On the off chance, let me explain: Running a spellchecker is not a solution. Such algorithms work by finding words that are close in spelling not close in pronunciation. Believe it or not, these are not the same thing. Since there are so many ways to phoneticaly represent a word, most of them are no where near the actual spelling. Therefore in cases where the phonetic representation I select at any particular time is not a close match to any spelling, I have to try alternat phonetic representations till I find one that the spell checker accepts as a hit. This can take minutes for each word, often 10 minutes in some cases. In other cases I simply can never find the word, and I have to resort to changing the sentence to use a differnt word. This can take several additional minutes. Once the spell checker does make a sugestion which looks phoneticaly correct there is an aditional delima. Often more than one suggestion is made, or for some reason it doesn't seem like the right word. I then have to look every sugjestion up in a dictionary. This takes several minutes until I find that I have the right spelling for the right word. Sometimes I find that none of the spellings represent the right word and I must then either start over with phonetic representations, or rewrite the sentence. You see, your brain has a component which automaticaly matches phonetic streams, to words, to spellings, to meanings, to the appearence of a written word (which is actualy differnt than spelling.) It does this on automatic, just as your hand recoils from a hot surface without you haveing to think about it. What is more when you have a thought, it is highly likely that the thought you have is in language. My brain does not do this. I think in pictures, in consepts, in abstractions without language. I have to conciously translate my thoughts into language. I have many more standard meanings than their are words to repersent. My thoughts are often more granular, but also often less granular than words allow. To translate a very small thought into words I must select from an abundence of possibilities. Usualy each one of these is equaly insuficient for what I wish to say. I then construct the sentence linearly, all the while processing the next sentence and thinking ahead. Aranging and rearanging consepts so that the structure of my conversation can be more easily processed linerly. If I am writing then as I do this the words which I chose must be sounded out and the english phonetic system employed to represent the sounds. All of this is up-front, first order conciousnes. Nothing happens on automatic. Everything must be thought about and considered. The spelling of a word to me is transparent. When I read I only read phenomes, not words. If I tried to concern myself with spelling, not only would I not be successfull in spelling properly, but I would never be able to get a sentence out. I would get stuck on a sentence and have to divert resources to spelling thus shutting down the processes which are buisy translating my thoughts into words. And again, I still would not spell correctly. In the past 10 years or so, I have been able to spell much better, becouse I have shiften my word memory from the abstract to the physical. By typing I am amble to store more words which can be recalled somewhat on auto. But muscle memory is not so exact. Sometimes I get the right phonetic grouping (FREX tion instead of shun), but voul sounds are still quite problemeatic. Forign words, especialy french words, are nearly imposible. My muscle memory knows that there is a C in muscle and a G in forgin, but I can not tell you whether or not I have spelled either corectly my looking at them. FORIGN FORIN FOUREN FORIGHN FOWRIN FUERIGN FORAN FORIEAN FAURGHIN all stimulate me to subvocalize forign, and that subvocalization can then be translated to meaning (once again -conciously-). My ...fingers tell me that forgin is the right pattern, but I have no way of knowing if this is corect or not. And give me a few hours or seconds and I might select an alternate spelling. Even now forighn also --feels-- right. I really have no way of knowing. I do get something in return though. I do visiual, abstract, pattern recognition, etc. on automatic. When I think of an object which is 3 demensional, I do not think of that object ~from and perspective~. I am able to hold more an process more in my head at one time, and much faster. I have to to be able to even speak and comunicate. You could suggest that everyone has hurdles and everyone has differnt things to deal with, and that is just life, and, after all, a few extra minutes spellchecking is something I will just have to deal with. And when you consider a few posts
Re: Clinton on Uranium-gate
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Clinton called in to wish Bob Dole happy birthday on Larry King and had some excellent comments on the whole SoU flap... As a Republican who doesn't give a flying frel about peoples personal relationships etc. I certainly do miss that man's presidency. Of all the people alive today Clinton is one of the few men I think is actualy qualified for the job. Personaly I think that 12 years, not 8 would be a better limit. Re-elect Bill Clinton! Remember I am a California Republican who signed the GD recal. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5) Keynsian theory has fallen out of favor, being relegated to a possible response to serious recession or depression. My Econ 101 back in the late 1980s and popular reporting on economics over more than the last twenty years emphasize the importance of Hayak-Freedman neo-liberal economic policies--including low tax burdens, hence, limited opportunity for trickle-up redistributive policies. Ummm The richest parts of the United States are those that have invested the most in public services--of all kinds. New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, et cetera are all high-tax high-service states. We are certainly getting *something* out of our investments in roads, bridges, harbors, education, research and development, and so forth... Brad DeLong I'll have more to say, but about PA: What? The argument in the newspapers here is how low our taxes are compared to the surrounding states (except Del and WV) and all the services we lost during the current budget crunch. Our roads are horrible, 75% of the bridges are just at their rated weight limits with (not a small percentage, 35%?) needing complete replacement, the state is very low in funding higher education (something that does not bother me), even with subsidies we are still losing businesses. All I have for comparison first hand is California, Oklahoma, Texas, Nevada. I like the geography where I live. But the economies in Texas and Nevada and the benifit of living in a No Tax State are so much better than I am continuly tempted to move back to either Texas or Nevada. Unfortunatly with either choice I have to make a decision between my summer and winter sport. If Nevada had a coast, or Texas had respectable mountains I would be gone, and I would take my money and my contribution to the economy of my state with me. In CA we pay outlandish taxes and have the WORST public upkeep. There are more homeless people, more very poor people, roads and road signs desperatly need repair, public buildings look like they will come down any minute. And racesism, gang activity...shiver etc. etc. Same with OK. In Texas and Nevada the public upkeep is great, the roads are wide and smooth, the signs actualy tell you usefull up to date info. There are fewer desperatly poor people, less homelessness. Less gang activity and racesism. etc. etc. Can anyone explain this? Maybe it's taxation? Maybe it's conservative fiscal policies. What else could it be? We are recalling our governer though, maybe things will change. (unfortunatly this might mean that the T1 model will be missing from the next terminator movie). = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, periods leaning more to trickle down have increased the gap between rich and poor more than have the trickle up leaning periods. There you go. That is exactly what needs to be expressed and isn't. At least not as loud as it should. Instead everyone is focused on the war. And in this arena the trickle up-ers are loosing. So get on board with the majority in forign policy and focus on the facts of a history we have with econmoics. Who will do this? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 05:17:09PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: As a continuous policy it stinks, but to jumpstart a failing economy it has worked in the past. Only for a sufficiently vague definition of worked. Getting money into the hands of people who will spend it on consumption has historically worked the best at stimulating GDP growth. Trickle down does not grow the GDP as fast as more progressive measures. The reason I am not backing my claims with data is that it has already been done on this list. Check the archives if you are interested. So what you are saying is that there is a way that works better? Get a graph of the economy for the last 24 years and see where it's good and were it isn't and then talk about who's polices seem to work and who's don't. Done that, AS I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST THIS WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED. And we went back much longer than 24 years too. Check the archives. Ok I'll spell it out. If you go back 24 yeas you will se that the Clinton years were the best. Ragan mediocre with the wealthy doing better than anyone else. The Bushes years stinking rotton. Whatever Clinton was doing seemed to work really well. Although what Ragan did worked better than what the Bushs did. If you would believe that it is dependent on the president, which, if you look at the graphs they match almost perfectly offset a few months into each presidency. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is an old boys club writ on a global scale. No backing for this. just becouse the above is true (if it is) does not mean that they are not doing what is right when it comes to forign policy. Think of it this way, just becouse someone is greedy doesn't mean that they would kill someone for money. You seem to want others to believe, just becouse someone is priviliged you think that all their actions are directly related to maintaining that privilige and yet you can not show a direct link, just an assumption. It's like you have a rule that says all rich people are evil. That seems just as bad as raceism to me, and it sound so rediculous that it makes what might be an otherwise convincing political stance seem wrong. And PNAC wasn't planning it's fourth reich and the iraq war since 1992. In another universe. In this one PNAC was planning the Iraq war since 1992. You can read about it from their own literature. planing yes. 4th reich no. you have to provide a reson why the PNAC is wrong, you can't just compare them with the nazis. That would be like me comparing you with the japanese emperialists. There is no connection. Richard Pearle: http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759 No stages, he said. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now. Goebbels: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb36.htm It's ammazing what people will accept as journalism these days. All you need is $10 a month and a very basic understanding of HTML. You get better more up-to-date news here: http://www.onion.com = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/18/2003 11:55:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is unpatriotic to falsely attack the rationale for the war when it is obvious to anyone who looks at the facts that the Administration was telling the truth. Period But clearly not every one agrees with this assessment. I have looked at some of the facts and I disagree. Tom Friedman has looked at the facts and he disagrees (not with the war but the administrations rationalization for the war). So what is obvious to you is not obvious to others. We are not stupid. Some of us have less partisan attitudes than you do about this issue (I may not be one of them; I hate Bush and his people. nd becouse of that you are mixing facts as if they were related when they are not. They are people with enormous privledge who view their privledge and proof of their moral superioty instead of luck and influence. Seems plosible enough. They are willing to sell the interests of the people they are supposed to represent secure in the knowledge that when they leave government service they can personally reap the rewards of their actions. Also might be true. It is an old boys club writ on a global scale. No backing for this. just becouse the above is true (if it is) does not mean that they are not doing what is right when it comes to forign policy. Think of it this way, just becouse someone is greedy doesn't mean that they would kill someone for money. You seem to want others to believe, just becouse someone is priviliged you think that all their actions are directly related to maintaining that privilige and yet you can not show a direct link, just an assumption. It's like you have a rule that says all rich people are evil. That seems just as bad as raceism to me, and it sound so rediculous that it makes what might be an otherwise convincing political stance seem wrong. Their moral values have begun to stifle research in this county. So focus on that. Stem cell scientists are leaving to go where they can do their work unfettered by moralistic crap. See show cause and effect, how the policy is hurting us without tying it to an area almost evryne would agree is helping us. They are infringing on personal liberty in ways that are both unnecessary and dangerous. They are wrecking our economy. you need to show how, but this sounds like the right kind of angle. Even if you accept the war you must accept that it will cost a huge amount of money. See there you go again. the American people are willing to pay. They are willing to fight this war because they believe it to be just and the right thing to do. If you get on board with the war, and mean it, all of your other arguments start to sound reasonable and important. take a lesson from 92. And yet we have a huge tax cut. This is unbelievably irresponsible. you have to show how out -expenses- make a tax cut unresponsible. It's a hard sell though. trickle down seems to work, poular opiioin is for the war, and for tax cuts. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is an old boys club writ on a global scale. No backing for this. just becouse the above is true (if it is) does not mean that they are not doing what is right when it comes to forign policy. Think of it this way, just becouse someone is greedy doesn't mean that they would kill someone for money. You seem to want others to believe, just becouse someone is priviliged you think that all their actions are directly related to maintaining that privilige and yet you can not show a direct link, just an assumption. It's like you have a rule that says all rich people are evil. That seems just as bad as raceism to me, and it sound so rediculous that it makes what might be an otherwise convincing political stance seem wrong. And PNAC wasn't planning it's fourth reich and the iraq war since 1992. In another universe. In this one PNAC was planning the Iraq war since 1992. You can read about it from their own literature. planing yes. 4th reich no. you have to provide a reson why the PNAC is wrong, you can't just compare them with the nazis. That would be like me comparing you with the japanese emperialists. There is no connection. And yet we have a huge tax cut. This is unbelievably irresponsible. you have to show how out -expenses- make a tax cut unresponsible. It's a hard sell though. trickle down seems to work, poular opiioin is for the war, and for tax cuts. Trickle down voodoo economics do not work. what would you have istead, state capitalism? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 10:58:49AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: trickle down seems to work, No it doesn't. This has been discussed at length on the list, and the evidence is that trickle down economics does not work. It helps the rich get richer, but the other 80% or 90% do not benefit very much at all. Further, the GDP grows more slowly with trickle down economic policies than with more progressive taxation. As a continuous policy it stinks, but to jumpstart a failing economy it has worked in the past. NMT- if the left really wants to put it to Bush they need to back the war %100 and focus instead on the economy. Get a graph of the economy for the last 24 years and see where it's god and were it isn't and then talk about who's polices seem to work and who's don't. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 03:15:02PM -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote: And of course, if it's been discussed on the list, it must be true. No, you are wrong about that. I didn't know that trickle down = less progressive taxation. It does not equal. But there is obviously a strong relation. Does that mean a flat tax trickle down progressive taxation? What exactly are you comparing? You are using words where there should be a quantitative variable. and you are arguing symantics when you know what is ment, what substanative discussion are you trying to avoid? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Watching BBC versus CNN or heaven forbid FOX Funny, I was glued to the tube, hardly slept, watched all 3 and Fox was the only channel not leading, feeding, makeing political statments as questions, diging for dirt where there was none, inventing dirt out of alternate interpritations of statments which were clearly not what was originaly ment, showing war as if death and distruction could be avoided, leaving out importatant information which altered a story significatly, comentary by SME's who had no idea what they were supposed to be experts on, storied showing only halph truths, stories about things that just didn't happen, miss paraphrasing, and false news. Both CNN and BBC showed rebrodcasts from AG which were clear violations of the GCs. Both CNN and BBC showed US soldirs in a bad way before their family could be notified. Both CNN and BBC rebrodcast or quoted false news brodcast by AG, or worse Iragi TV and BDB. There traslations where horindous, they were behind on nearly every story, often by hours and sometimes by days (and they still got them wrong). CNN had many embeded reporters who were simply asked to leave (contributing to their lack of real news). Fox had one reporter cought looting, several reporters KIA. I remember one story in particular where a small white car had driven at high speeds tward a US force position. The US snipers took out the car killing most in the car. On CNN the story (5 hours later) was US troops indiscrimintly murder civilians, why?. On Fox they showed the troops involved, some of them teary eyed and shooken up. They showed one US troop holding and consoling a surviver who spoke english and was asking why, why?. Tee troop explained that the car rushed the position after loud verbal warnings and warning shots. Then an interview with the comanding officer who gave the order to fire. CNN? Nothing but shots of the mangled car and a talking head saying that US troops took out the car with civilians inside and something to the effect that -there is no known reason why they did this-. I can really understand how those who watched CNN or BBC exclusivly got such a skewed view. Sad really. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Difference between man and woman.
--- Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An image that definitively and clearly illustrates the difference between men and women. http://www.newpacifica.net/life.html Do you see the inoculous little knob on the lower left? The one where all the arrows point -down-? Whatever you do, DONT TURN THAT KNOB! Also be forwarned any time you get a red light, quickly undo whatever you just did. It won't stop the screeaching noise, and the unit will never work the same as it did before, but it's much better than the whole system crashing. (notice: most models come with a red light already on) = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: SCOUTED: Are Americans part of an UnregulatedExperiment?_USA Today
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's one I apparently meant to send some time ago- Very thurough. Thank you for sharing all that work. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: movie ripoffs.
--- d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My friend Paul Preuss probably won't be suing the guys who made THE CORE. Still, the possibility glimmers as we stack up comparisons and things stolen from his book CORE. (Oh, and several scenes and thing clearly borrowed from EARTH.) It makes me wonder if someone sometime should set up a whistleblower site - akin to some of the urban legends sites - that simply posts point by point comparisons between movies and books. Do any of you know of such a site already in existence? A comparison is below. WOuld any of you care to hunt up Paul's book and do your own comparison? db = Comparing Core, a 1993 novel by Paul Preuss, with The Core, a Paramount picture released in April 2003, Directed by Jon Amiel, Produced by David Foster, screenplay by Cooper Layne et al. In both the novel and the movie, Earth faces sudden peril because of an extraordinarily quick collapse of the planet's magnetic field. In both book and film, plucky scientists propose to penetrate deep into Earth's core, setting off bombs in the core to restart the field-generating dynamo. In both book and film, a hermit-like innovator works alone to invent the superhard, refractory material essential to withstand the heat and pressure of the deep Earth. In both the novel and the movie, nefarious government agencies spy on these efforts because of their schemes to use earthquakes as weapons. The producers of the film chose to make the delivery system of their nuclear bombs a deep-diving ship carrying a human crew. While this makes for colorful drama onscreen, the utter impossibility of the approach is a groaner that may have helped defeat the film at the box office. Preuss's novel is intended as plausible fiction and does not use a crewed vessel. Nevertheless the extrapolation from his deep drilling project is blatant. Some specific points: The unnaturally rapid collapse of the Earth's magnetic field is original to the novel and copyrighted. A specific kind of hard, refractory material is original to the novel and copyrighted. The screenplay uses terms from the novel relating to this material, but takes them out of context and renders them senseless, indicating that the idea did not have a common, independent origin. The entire sequence of a dive into a deep trench in the Western Pacific, including underwater earthquakes, whale sightings, etc., was taken from the novel in a way that cannot plausibly have had a common, independent origin. The proposition that the Earth's collapsed magnetic field can be restored by setting off bombs in the liquid core is original to the novel and copyrighted. Both novel and screenplay have as subplots the military use of earthquakes as weapons; in both cases spies for the military are part of the drilling operations. (In both, the spies are even of Slavic origin!) This strains coincidence. The producers of The Core appear to have attempted to spread out their borrowings in order to take the best ideas wherever they lie, and possibly to disperse any actionable similarities. Another blatant source of appropriated copyrighted material is described below. Comparing Earth, a 1991 novel by David Brin, with The Core, a screenplay by Cooper Layne et al. This novel and the movie share the notion of the planet's core becoming a threat because of human meddling. In the Preuss novel, the initial calamity was natural. In the Brin novel, and in the movie The Core, catastrophe was triggered by a human-made object dropped deep into the Earth, requiring human intervention to correct and eliminate the first cause. There are variances in The Core between the initial script, the released version of the film, and the story told by publicity previews, but all three are relevant. Previews tell of a mission to eliminate the deep manmade object object causing disaster on the surface. The most blatant borrowing from Earth is a pivotal dramatic sequence, early in both the book and the movie, in which a woman space-shuttle pilot, pondering her failed marriage, must suddenly turn her attention to saving her ship after the vessel is crippled by the beam or field of influence of some human-triggered calamity in the core of the planet. Every last detail mentioned in the previous sentence is specific to the novel and copyrighted. Every detail appears miraculously in the script of The Core. Also overlapping is the shuttle pilot's subsequent role as the co-protagonist, co-survivor, and love interest of the male scientist lead. The novel Earth partly involves the unprecedented and innovative idea of interacting with the planet on the level of software. In publicity for The Core - though not in the released version of the film - a character relates that he is going to
Re: Brin: movie ripoffs.
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: d.brin wrote: My friend Paul Preuss probably won't be suing the guys who made THE CORE. Still, the possibility glimmers as we stack up comparisons and things stolen from his book CORE. (Oh, and several scenes and thing clearly borrowed from EARTH.) I think this can cause some problems. Copy from one is plagiarism, copy from many is research :-) They probably can claim that they were taking ideas from many books so they can escape being accused of stealing from only one. Disny and WB would definatly sue if you made a cartoon about a mouse named nicky and a bunny named biggs. Or how about Alian Terminator a movie about a T-14 cybernetic unit sent back through time to kill a woman before she could spawn an insect like alian that was growing in her stomach. Marvel and DC would have a problem if you made a movie about Bat-gent and Spider-boy 2 supper heroes that battle a ridieling clown and a goblin like mutation, both dressed in green. It's theft and something sould be done! = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More Sci-Fi Channel sadness....
--- Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a good news/bad news kind of thing, good that the sci-fi channel has some great ratings, sad at what it was that gave them the great ratings (I am not including Stargate in that statement) SCI FI's Saturday Original Movies delivered a 1.3 average rating this quarter, outperforming non-original Saturday movies by 18 percent. This year, SCI FI became the largest producer of original movies in television, beating out all cable and broadcast networks, the channel announced. 2 things 1) The way TV ratings are gathered will not hit the SciFi demographic, so going by ratings is inapropriate. 2) Even given (1) it was Stargate which did it. I still believe that pulling Farscape was one of their biggest mistakes. Farscape was the best show on TV since Star Trek. The rumor is that they did not want to pay what the Henson co. was requesting. The change in managment that occured the year before droping Farscape is directly responsible. If you agree with these statments it wouldn't hurt to send letters to the channel. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion Discussion, was God, Religion and Sports
--- 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 for the duration. 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? Agnostic means not knowing, right? I don't really see that there is much to DISAGREE with there. You might personally KNOW, but should be open to the possibility that others don't. I'm not sure what you are getting at in the last paragraph. Let's change the topic under discussion from religion to astronomy (or math, or physics, or some other subject at which you may be considered an expert). When I go into the classroom, it is assumed that I know something about the topic, and that it is not just a possibility but a certainty that the students in the class do not know as much about it as I do. So what I do is to share as much of my knowledge of the topic with them as is possible. However, it seems as if the above is saying that instead of sharing my knowledge with others, if they do not already know what I know, I should pretend that I don't know either? Is that the correct interpretation, or am I misreading what the above says? If you aren't ...open to the possibility that others don't know (?) ... , there really isn't much to say, is there? But since I am open to the possibility that others don't know as much as I do about certain topics, I am willing to share what I do know in order to help others learn more about those topics. Do we agree, or am I missing the point you were trying to make? Ronn, I think you are missing the point. You are getting cought up in alternate interpritations of the words being used. You have gone off down a metiforical path which has little to do with the original conversation. I could easily repond with Take yourself out of the position of teacher and treat the others in the disagreement as if they were equals. but then I would taking that path with you and that would be counter productive. Let em see if I can help. The Idea here is that two equaly intelegant people have a disagreement on of somthing or other we wil call (X). Person (A) believes that (X) is True, but person (B) does not. If they are going to have an enlightened disagreement where each is open to the posability that they migt be wrong they should each start from a position that the -truth value- of A is unknown, and then describe to the other how a postition of truth or falsification is reached. Persons of faith tend not to want to engage in this type of discussion about their faith. Even though they are willing to have (and often require) this type of discussion on every other topic. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- 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 agnostics be forced to adopt their viewpoint? If you are not willing to change your assumptions based on data, then the discussion will be rather limited. Does that apply equally to atheists and agnostics as well as believers? Yes If religion is measured on a linear scale with atheists on one end and zealots and literalists on the other end, then it seems that agnostics are the most neutral and willing to change assumptions, and therefore the best viewpoint for a productive discussion. At least, that is how I interpreted David's comment. So agnostics are just as willing to find out if God exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? Yes = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- 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 is pretty much the definition, I thought. In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - since a negative cannot be proved, many people who might casually be thought of as atheists tend to self-characterize themselves as agnostic. As such, I think a great many of self- described agnostics strongly lean atheist. It would be the same as being agnostic about the space alien zipeldorbgh from the planet tripalawalazipdang. I can neither prove nor disprove zipeldobgh's existance. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- 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 exists as they are to find out that God does not exist? That is pretty much the definition, I thought. In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. So atheists are dishonest? Are you just being rude as usual or do you have any kind of a point at all? Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - No it doesn't. All of this has been gone over many many times on this list and you obviously have never paid the least bit of attention, yet you have the discourtesy to interject your nonsense despite not having a clue what you are talking about. That is very very rude. since a negative cannot be proved, Can you even read? 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 reconsider the intent, with the assumption that it is not meant to vex. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Same-sex marriage
--- 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 children will think that it si all right or even appropriate to live in that kind of sin. Such people have a hard time seperating religous consepts from law. They beleive that our laws should match their religious consepts. Fortunatly this nation was founded in part on the consept that the two should be seperate. A good American would shun religious conservatism. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- 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 begs the question of success as a species. If success is nothing more than survival (is there another scientific definition?), then this is the anthropic principal. The week one, not the strong one. The second part (altruism is an outcome of evolution) is circular, since it assumes that our characteristics are derived exclusively from evolutionary processes. There is no reason for it to be exclusive. Even if true, it begs the question of the origin of evolution as we understand it. Like everything else, evolution would seem to be grounded in the fundamental physics of the universe, but that doesn't really answer anything about altruism, does it? In fact, it starts to seem imaginary, doesn't it? No, our behaviors, or at least our tendencies for certain behaviors are genetic. Sorry, that is just the way it is. You might want to silence this idea becouse a few idiots might try and use this in an atempt to lagitimize raceism, but that will not change the reality of it (or the wrongness of racesism). We are what we are -in part- becouse we evolved that way. Like it or not, we all have differnt choices within our own posible range of normal behavior. Once again this does not lagitimize violence or damaging deviancy. But it does mean that differing forms of emotional expression should be tolerated, and that some individuals may be better suited to altruistic behavior than others. It does not mean that each indiciudal does not make their own choices, but that the range of choices avaialble to them on any particular axis may be limited. The further out of the bounds of those limits, the harder it is for that individual to make that choice. How about if we apply the same reasoning to religious behavior? It must lead to success as a species; otherwise it wouldn't have evolved. One can justify any human characteristic that way. Yes you can. In the extream it is of course rediculous. Of course we do have free will. No one is saying we don't. And yes religion, and the propencity to be spiritual have been shown to increase ~some~ individuals happyness. I see bigger problems than the logical ones above. I se no logical problems above other than your own. (pardon me for saying) First, nobody knows if anyone does anything for just one reason, I'd argue -- we never really know if our motivations are altruistic or not, and it's not a Boolean function! Clearly, we know a lot of what happens in our brains, so we have far less than perfect knowledge of our motivations. I certainly have had flashes of insight that some of my supposedly altruistic behavior had big selfish components. Imagine, for example, a person who is quite certain that disrupting this community to demand better behavior, who realizes that he actually is craving the disruption and attention that results (any similarity to persons living or dead is probably less than a coincidence). But is that craving from a desire to make things better, and being an instramental part of that betterment a sens of reward, or is it mearly the simple attention, bad or good? I think the same sort of argument applies to us as a species. While evolution may be the mechanism that gave us altruistic behavior, none of us has perfect knowledge of what behavior in a specific situation will contribute to evolutionary success. Without that knowledge, such decisions cannot be logical, at least in the formal sense of logic. I agree with that. I wonder how many here do? For me, faith is largely a response to imperfect knowledge. Why have faith at all? Shouldnt a state of not knowing be the appropriate response to imperfect knowledge? Of course I am not talking about the kind of faith you have in your own abilities or the abilities in others. I am not talking about the kind of wishful thinking faith when you make a decision based on incomplete data, but the kind of faith in a god or some extra-ordinary spiritualism. There are big differences in these kinds of faith. One is social group forming and confidence building, another allows you to stay focused and actually make decisions rather than spinning in an indecisive state. The last however makes no sense to be so I do not know what purpose it might serve. Although I'd like to operate as if I know myself, my species and everything else well enough to remove ambiguity (supervisor-of-the-universe mode), I've only found peace when I accept that I will never fully understand my own motivations or those of humanity in general (humble mode, much harder to stick with). Why not simply accept that you do not ~yet~ understand, and the possibility and probability that you will never
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm answering Erik's message in pieces, because it was extremely long. I' I'll start it with a general question, do people here think that there is rarely a real conflict between one's own interest and the interest of others? - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: At some level, yes. But all moralities aren't created equal. Some are clearly better than others, in that some will almost surely lead to a society that almost no one would want to live in. It depends on what is desired from morality. Some are better than others for reaching particular goals, certainly. But, that naturally leads to the question what goals? It's easy to label your goals rational and another's goals as irrational. However, that requires a definition of rational that differs from mine. Rational, to me, involves things like a reasoned deduction from axioms. Typically, in science, we have a model and compare the model with observation. A more general use of irrational is stating a set of priorities and performing actions that are inconsistent with those priorities. An example of this is smoking, while being very concerned about health risks from background radiation. If the small risk from background radiation is important, why isn't the large risk from smoking? But, some actions are arational. Choosing to sacrifice one's life defending another is inherently neither irrational or rational. It depends on one's set of priorities. If one is only concerned with one's own self interest, it is an irrational action: unless the alternative is a fate worse than death. However, if one believes in principals, then those principals can be worth dying for. If everyone went around indiscriminately hurting or killing each other, it would be an awful world indeed. Also, some moralities are parasitic, in that if everyone followed those morals, the desired result would not obtain I won't argue with that, but I don't think that's the question at hand. The question at hand is what will the plusses and negatives for that individual if that individual performs the action in question. You appear to argue that there is no significant conflict between rational self-interest and the greater good for all. I'll agree if you show that the conflict between the goals of different people is an illusion (i.e. you show that rational self interest is served by considering the needs of others as just as important as one's own), then you will have reduced the question of morality to a question of accurately gauging one's own self interest. But, that premise really doesn't match observation. The question is complicated enough, so that it is probably not possible to actually falsify that hypothesis, but the overwhelming amount of evidence is against it. Part of the reason for that is the fact that, by the nature of the premise, you have set yourself a very high standard for proof. The existence of win-win situations, where the predominant strategy for the individual benefits all is not sufficient. Rather, it is necessary to show that win-lose scenarios do not exist to any significant extent. I seems to me that you are both right, in a way. While it seems reasonable...:) to believe that a set of individuals in a group, all acting on their own self intrests, will ~eventualy~ do what is best for the greater good, the process of getting to that state on any particular axis will not necisarily be good for every individual independently. It has allways been my assumption that Morals (or ethics depending on your deinitions) are an attempt, all be it perhaps often unintentionaly, to direct the group in such a way that progress on any particular axis toward a state where everyoe is acting for the greater good without removing the benifiting for any one individual. No set of morals seems to work tword this end to such a degree that I personaly find stisfactory, but this dous provide a basis on which to compare one set against others. Further more, it is not just the idea as stated which is important for this comparison, but the system in actual practice, emergant properties and all. I have my own code hich I try ad live by, but I must admit that even that code is hard to follow. Hypocracy can create very interesting emergeant properties. So it seems to me that a good set of morals or ethics or..whatever you want to call it, should be constructed with enough insight that it is resilliant to hypocracy. Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke
watching the watchers
Has someoen already posted this? http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/06/government.google.ap/index.html = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. He was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire and getting out of the complex, he went door to door knocking on the doors telling people to get out. He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a Christian standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest form of love possible. But, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, his actions were irrational. On a cost/benefits basis, it was the wrong decision to make. Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Do you really think that is what he was thinking at the time? Just becouse that ~could have been~ his motivation doesn't mean that we can make any argumenats based on that possiblity in support of enlightened self intrest. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 03:21 am, Dan Minette wrote: You and I have a different understanding of spiralling, then. The non-European ethnic makeup of GB is 2.8%. They are optimistically projecting enough immigration to make this about 6% or so in 20 years. And its the shining star. California already has white non-Hispanics as the biggest minority, not the majority. Texas will follow in about 2 years. Yes, one can see a significant minority of non-Europeans in London. That's because that is a haven for non-whites in GB. Contrast that with my neck of the woods where neither of the two mayoral candidates were European. http://society.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4605024,00.html Two boroughs of Britain have more black and Asian people than white people for the first time ever, according to figures from the 2001 census published today. Data from the £200m survey showed that there were 4.5 million people from ethnic minorities in the UK in 2001 - 7.6% of the total population. The ethnic minority population of England rose from 6% in 1991 to 9% in 2001. Whites made up 39.4% of people living in the east London borough of Newham and 45.3% in Brent in the north-west of the capital. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1556901.stm Britain's ethnic minorities are growing at 15 times the rate of the white population, newly-published research shows. Data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) between 1992-1994 and 1997-1999 showed that the number of people from minority ethnic groups grew by 15% compared to 1% for white people. The figures also revealed that on average Britain's ethnic minorities have a much younger age profile. The average age for the white population surveyed in the 1997-1999 period was 37 or less but only 26 for ethnic minorities. The report concluded: Their young age structure and the consequential large number of births and relatively small number of deaths helps to explain the disproportionate contribution of minority ethnic groups to population growth in the 1990s. Significantly the ethnic group with the youngest age profile were those who described themselves as mixed with 58% being aged 14 or under. Overall their numbers increased by 49% in the periods surveyed - the second largest growth among black groups. This is sad because minorities use this information to combat any attempts at birth restrictions calling them racists. The world is over-populated as it is, we need to start setting restrictions now before it get's so out of hand that we have a catastrophe. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Do you really think that is what he was thinking at the time? Just becouse that ~could have been~ his motivation doesn't mean that we can make any argumenats based on that possiblity in support of enlightened self intrest. Our culture glorifies heroism, does it not? It's been ingrained upon us from the time we are small children that to sacrifice one's own short term self interest for the good of a larger group - especially helpless individuals - is a good thing and will generally be rewarded. Doug You know, I voluntere on a regular basis for psitions which might place me in danger and might have a significant benifit for others. (Floor safty warden at work for instance) I don't think I once considered glorification or reward. I also do not beleive that any of my associates consider this either. I know that if I had been in the position of the gentalman in question, I would have felt -responsible- for the lives of those people who didn't know. I would have continued as long as possible becouse of duty and responsability rather than a desire for fame, social status, or reward. It is actualy... shifted down, I would have felt guilty if I hadn't, I would not have been able to live with myself. What I really don't understand is how anyone else could be any different. In my experiance they are not, so I will have to disagree with you. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just a Fire Break Check (was Religion, etc)
Gautam Perhaps I have been idealistic in thinking of tolerance as the opposite of intolerance, perhaps the word tolerance is not comprehensive enough when it comes to interaction (tolerance may be more passive action of non posters?- not firmly sure on this yet). (Looking back Jon did a better job than I pointing out the need for both respect and tolerance.) What I see lacking is respect for each other- one need not agree with a position, but at least respect the other person's ability to have an opinion different from you. First we have to define what we mean by these words: Tolerance: To many americans I think tolerance means putting up with others differences and accepting someone for what they intend, rather than how they come across based one ones personal cultural norms. In other macro cultures tolerance means trying to interact with others in they way they expect based on the other's cultural norms. Consider the example where onep erson (A) were to act so drasticaly different that to another person (B) it would generaly be considred offensive. 1) If B were an American (or others who have the same model) B would most likely ~be tolerant~ and first assume that not offense was intended. 2) However if B was rasied with another bodel of tolerance, B would likely consider A to be intolerant and to be very offended. What is more if A in this case was following the American model, A would mow find B to be intolerant. I think that this defines the American version of multi-culturalism often refered to (and misunderstood) as a melting-pot. The American model gives a greatest common denominator result, while maintaining a high degree of individuality. The alternative Multi-Cultural model results in a least common denominator result (much more in line with what many think when they hear melting-pot) and results in much less individuality. You may disagree with this, but I think it provides a starting point from which to discuss tolerance and what it means. I think it might have something to do with the NA influences on my own personal microculture, but I personaly fail to see how anyone has really been ~that~ intolerant. It is hard to define the existance of a lack of respect for anothers viewpoint. Clearly, simply restating already stated consept is a symptom, but then one must diagnose and that is where it becouse dificult. Consider an example where person (A) is restating something to person (B). 1) It may be that person (B) has not shown a good understanding of what (A) said. (B) may not be respecting what A has to say, or may not be respecting that what (A) has said may have important subtle differences to what (B) is expecting. (B) may be purpously ignoring certain features of (A)'s consepts or arguments. In short it may be a sign that (B)is lacking respect. 2) (A) could simply be ignoreing everything (B)sais and simply repeating. (A) may be lacking respect. Defining a lack of respect is more troublesome than it may at first appear. While it may be more obvious that the lack of respect exists, it is not necisarily obvious who specificaly is lacking respectfulness. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? humans (most?) fall back upon these instincts when their life is threatened. Why does he say My God, those people will die if I don't do something, I better act.? Would the stories he's been told from youth about the good guy saving lives - the television shows, the movies, the real life stories on the news at least be a factor? We're taught, hell, _trained_ that to be the hero is the right thing to do and has its rewards. Well I certainly wasn't. I was taught to do the right thing because it was right. I was also taught that there was often a very stiff penalty for doing the right thing, but one should do it anyways. The point I was making was that people do the right thing because they believe in right and wrong. It doesn't have to be faith in God, but it is still faith based. By pointing out that these principals are just lies and myths, one is undercutting the community. Even if one points out that some story or another is a lie or myth, does not effect the reality of right and wrong. If you throw away the crutch of the myths and lies and are left with nothing but the hard reality right is still right and wrong is still wrong. The strength in that is far grater than any strength on can recieve from blind faith. Not only that, but it is infaliable, where as faith is not. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:12:18AM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Good point. Such beliefs are not usually based in fact, but are strongly held. So in a sense, they are based on faith. But somehow it feels like a completely different KIND of faith than the faith required to believe in a god. Help! William already pointed out that God is irrelevant to that system as described by Dan. But Dan did not reply. Yes, I've got that. But why do we believe in Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or whatever? I read Dan's post as saying that this was also faith. I pretty much agree. So how is it different from deistic faith? It does FEEL different to me, but I can't pin down the difference. What if there is not faith involved at all. Doing the right thing makes the world a better place to be, and makes you feel good. Not doing the right thing makes you feel bad, and makes the world a worse place to be. Where is the faith? Faith is a lie told to the un-ivolved to try and get them to mimick the intelegant. An intelegant person has no use for faith. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
