Re: Scientific Progress

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:24:12AM -0700, Razer wrote: > On 10/26/2016 11:14 AM, Tom wrote: > > > there are a couple of people on the list, who do... > > No. I don't think there are. I just think some of us believe a > more-than-small-portion of what's purported to be 'science' is twisted > and

Re: Scientific Progress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_Laboratory

Re: Scientific Progress

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Razer wrote: > If your project ins a Cyclotron or something it might take a while but... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/this-fall-the-radioactive-boy-scout-died-at-age-39/ David Charles Hahn

Re: Scientific Progress

PS: - Unhappily, part of this mess on the CP list is my guilt. I can't deny my participation in pretty bizarre threads and topics, full of bad words and aggressive comments, in the last five months. Sorry! :(

Re: Scientific Progress

On Nov 5, 2016 8:11 AM, "John Newman" wrote: > > And I still invite the "cesspool" comparison. This list has become a fucking cesspool, aided and abetted by you and your comrades. Few days ago, I felt really bad, horrible when received a private message of a sweet woman,

Re: Scientific Progress

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 06:34:20PM -, coresamp...@sigaint.org wrote: > > Juan: > > Your climate 'scientists' are highly paid university parasites, > > pandering to 'progressive' eco fascists. > > The church of "progress" is the religion of the emotionally defective, the > spiritually

Re: Scientific Progress

On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 23:17:13 -0400 John Newman wrote: > Wow, you really took an interest in the fact that I used the word > dialectics. Did you learn a new word? Yes, thank you ;) > > All your repeated dishonest blathering has gotten repetitive (big > fucking

Re: Scientific Progress

Wow, you really took an interest in the fact that I used the word dialectics. Did you learn a new word? All your repeated dishonest blathering has gotten repetitive (big fucking surprise). I leave you to your cesspool =). Enjoy it, you pedantic twit. John > On Nov 5, 2016, at 2:53 PM, juan

Re: Scientific Progress

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 5:20 PM, juan wrote: > russian propaganda. > I simply ignore it. You certainly do. Blatant statist bullshit pours into and through the list and Juan the protector simply ignores it. But if someone mentions global warming or science at a

Re: Scientific Progress

On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 07:17:05 -0400 John Newman wrote: > (unless the so-called "STATIST" in question is of the > Russian variety, in which case it's all good) americunt fascist john newman is offended by russian propaganda? Yep, self-parody at its best.

Re: Scientific Progress

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 11:34 PM, juan wrote: > > On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 22:20:40 -0400 > John wrote: > >> Hey - that's the second time you said you were "done" with me. After >> making a raft of bogus allegations. Interesting rhetorical >> technique ;) > >

Re: Scientific Progress

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 22:20:40 -0400 John wrote: > Hey - that's the second time you said you were "done" with me. After > making a raft of bogus allegations. Interesting rhetorical > technique ;) Being done with you means not taking you seriously and not caring

Re: Scientific Progress

On 11/03/2016 08:20 PM, John wrote: > Hey - that's the second time you said you were "done" with me. After making a > raft of bogus allegations. Interesting rhetorical technique ;) > > Cosmic parody? "Sonny" (lol)? Something here is a cosmic parody, but it > isn't some words and beliefs

Re: Scientific Progress

I should've said cave lions, not tigers - was a reference to earlier email where Juan made "quick work" (heh) of Tom for pointing out a few scientific links. John On November 3, 2016 9:58:28 PM EDT, Razer wrote: > > >On 11/03/2016 01:06 PM, John Newman wrote: >> For that

Re: Scientific Progress

Hey - that's the second time you said you were "done" with me. After making a raft of bogus allegations. Interesting rhetorical technique ;) Cosmic parody? "Sonny" (lol)? Something here is a cosmic parody, but it isn't some words and beliefs you've put in my mouth. Cheers John On November

Re: Scientific Progress

There isn't any hypocrysy on my part. I unlike you do not advocate STATISM and CENSORSHIP in the 'cypherpunks' mailing list. "get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods" That's exactly what the most corrupt

Re: Scientific Progress

Hey, the bots broken again ? Seems to be on repeat. Your blatant hypocrisy was my point, obviously. Just because Juan says it (or denies it) - does not make it so. John > On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:39 PM, juan wrote: > > > > >Thanks John. You keep making the point

Re: Scientific Progress

Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid STATIST piece of shit. You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from

Re: Scientific Progress

You can dish it the fuck out Juan, but you can't take it :) Wanna call me a faggot retard now? How old are you anyway? And yes, you do truly embody the "punk" ethos, which you love to bring up. Not punk as in punk rock, but punk as in a little whipped bitch. Have fun with your conspiratard

Re: Scientific Progress

Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid piece of shit. You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.

Re: Scientific Progress

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 05:11:03PM -0300, juan wrote: > Let me point out though that your line of thinking that > goes from "I like something" to "so it must be funded by the > mafia" is not only nonsense, it's morally unaccpetable. If you find scientific advances that were made

Re: Scientific Progress

On 10/28/2016 12:07 PM, \0xDynamite wrote: >> But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists and >> so on are fascists, parasites, or idiots, who are the sane people left? >> C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist is >> part of a global multi

Scientific Progress

> Razer: > You didn't pull that quote out of your ass cunt. You knew who wrote it. That's the way legitimate posters 'roll'.

Re: Scientific Progress

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:33:52 -0400 Kevin Gallagher wrote: > > > On 10/28/2016 10:06 AM, Razer wrote: > > Ps. Obviously, I don't hate science... as someone mentioned earlier > > it's going to require a cultural shift to literally DISARM the > > scientists. They should hold bake

Re: Scientific Progress

> But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists and > so on are fascists, parasites, or idiots, who are the sane people left? > C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist is > part of a global multi cultural, multi societal, multi language >

Re: Scientific Progress

On 10/28/2016 07:33 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote: > I have to start thinking about funding soon. I better start making > brownies and selling them in places where people would care about my > research! I'm really not interested in taking dirty DoD money or > something like that. > Go to

Re: Scientific Progress

On 10/28/2016 10:06 AM, Razer wrote: > Ps. Obviously, I don't hate science... as someone mentioned earlier it's > going to require a cultural shift to literally DISARM the scientists. > They should hold bake sales for their projects until the time they > unhook themselves from the Pentagon and

Re: Scientific Progress

On 10/28/2016 12:41 AM, Tom wrote: > Yeah, I'll build my own orbital telescope and count galaxies Why not? In 1988 or so I took an Epson HX-20 cp/m laptop and put it on the intertubz, and packet radio, using a basic 1.1 program I wrote myself that also would print out (on demand) a log or

Re: Scientific Progress

> I never said "science is the enemy" - I do say that > technicians working for the establishment and pretending to be > 'scientists' are the enemy. The claims are related, but not > equal. Ok, makes sense. > Thanks for providing a reason why your view of the >

Re: Scientific Progress

On 10/27/2016 02:14 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > https://xkcd.com/1520/ Oh, and another thing. The problem isn't science. It's human nature. I'm not optimistic. I suspect that we're a transitional stage in the evolution of consciousness. And that's what's important. Not a particular flavor of

Re: Scientific Progress

https://xkcd.com/1520/

Re: Scientific Progress

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:58:06 +0200 Tom wrote: > Juan, > > > Who are they, Tom? > > As I understand your mails, you're one of them. Maybe I misunderstood > your mails I never said "science is the enemy" - I do say that technicians working for the

Re: Scientific Progress

But But! Whitey's on the MOON! That's my problem with your, and so many other worshipers of Technocracy's worldview, in a sentence Tom. Those pretty pictures come with a price, and that price is MURDER, of people who would never get to see those pretty pictures. Another example... This gun can

Re: Scientific Progress

Juan, > Who are they, Tom? As I understand your mails, you're one of them. Maybe I misunderstood your mails - my appologies in that case. > And where's the 'scientific' evidence for your propaganda claim? Why should I make propaganda? I'm not the government nor do I work for one. I just

Re: Scientific Progress

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote: > Additionally, science is not without limits. We, as scientists, cannot > perform experiments that harm people. We also cannot perform experiments > without consent. Moral actors can impose such limits on themselves. Science,

Re: Scientific Progress

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:24:12 -0700 Razer wrote: > > > On 10/26/2016 11:14 AM, Tom wrote: > > > there are a couple of people on the list, who do... > > No. I don't think there are. I just think some of us believe a > more-than-small-portion of what's purported to be

Re: Scientific Progress

On 10/26/2016 11:14 AM, Tom wrote: > there are a couple of people on the list, who do... No. I don't think there are. I just think some of us believe a more-than-small-portion of what's purported to be 'science' is twisted and perverted to fit the needs of industrialists and capitalists

Re: Scientific Progress

Hello Kevin, On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote: > I do not claim that science is the enemy. It is the opposite. Ah, great. However, there are a couple of people on the list, who do. My mail was merely directed at them, not at you personally. Sorry if it sounded that

Re: Scientific Progress

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:03:00 -0700 Razer wrote: > > > On 10/25/2016 05:24 AM, John Newman wrote: > > > > > >> On Oct 25, 2016, at 12:59 AM, Tom wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:36:30PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote: > >>> They are blind enough

Re: Scientific Progress

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:36:30 -0400 Kevin Gallagher wrote: > Hello all, "scientist" (PhD candidate) here in the field of computer > science and cyber security. > > Most of the scientists I have encountered are not totally malicious, > just oblivious to the moral, ethical

Re: Scientific Progress

On 10/25/2016 05:24 AM, John Newman wrote: > > >> On Oct 25, 2016, at 12:59 AM, Tom wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:36:30PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote: >>> They are blind enough to believe that their "advances" help society, >>> despite them actually shifting the

Re: Scientific Progress

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:58:24 +0200 Tom wrote: > But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists > and so on are fascists, parasites, It's obvious that all 'scieniists' working for the state are parasites working for fascist states. Perhaps

Re: Scientific Progress

But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists and so on are fascists, parasites, or idiots, who are the sane people left? Only you, the russians and the Juan's out there? C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist is part of a global multi

Scientific Progress

> Juan: > Your climate 'scientists' are highly paid university parasites, > pandering to 'progressive' eco fascists. The church of "progress" is the religion of the emotionally defective, the spiritually dyslexic, and the philosophically depraved. To put it into other terms: If you want