From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:46 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Vehiculus automobilius
If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species
On 07 Mar 2014, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 2:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno
started when he mentioned the question Goedel? in class. That, in
itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most
seasoned
On 07 Mar 2014, at 00:06, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Are you telling me only a single person, Bruno's advisor, was the
judge of whether Bruno's paper should be awarded the prize? And that
single person first approved it and then rejected it when he had
some dispute with Bruno? That
On 07 Mar 2014, at 00:33, chris peck wrote:
Hi Bruno
Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.
pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on
subjective uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just
two.
With respect to the UDA, graves and me are
The fact that climate modelling is hard is not a reason to ignore it or to
disregard the results.
Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas but it comes and goes (clouds, fog,
etc). CO2 stays put and has increased by 50% since the Industrial
Revolution (indeed about 20% in my lifetime). A warmer
On 07 Mar 2014, at 00:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be
willing to answer ).
On 07 Mar 2014, at 01:14, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:41:51PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
computer
On 07 Mar 2014, at 03:12, chris peck wrote:
Then you omit, like Clark, the simple and obvious fact that if in
H you predict P(M) = 1, then the guy in Moscow will understand that
the prediction was wrong.
The question you pose to H in step 3 is badly formed.
It is not, once you get
On 07 Mar 2014, at 06:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness
at all? Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true
randomness?
Dear Bruno, I am shocked and saddened to hear what has been done to you.
You have my greatest sympathies. (I too have been susceptible to
manipulation, as I am rather shy and awkward in person, so I speak from
experience.) I am very eager to obtain a copy of the Amoeba's Secret,
even more than I
On 7 March 2014 15:12, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
The question you pose to H in step 3 is badly formed. You ask H, 'what is
the probability that you will see M' but this question clearly presupposes
the idea that there will be only one unique successor of H. The only
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true
On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:04, Bruno Marchal wrote (to Brent):
On 07 Mar 2014, at 06:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness
at all? Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
Or is FPI just a
Hi Craig,
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with
a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have
replaced the functionality of horses in human society.
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe
is
All, re global warming
Global warming slows down Antarctica’s coldest currents, poses huge
threathttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zmescience/~3/w9XOKUpInB0/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=email
Oceanographers believe that Antarctica‘s oceanic waters, which are turning
from briny to fresh in
On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:06:54 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
*Sent:* Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:46 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:14:15 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Craig,
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species
with a simulation, we have a ready example of what it
On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:
Dear Bruno, I am shocked and saddened to hear what has been done to
you. You have my greatest sympathies.
Thanks Liz. Actually I think we are all victims of this sad and so
much contingent happening. Without it, perhaps I would have published
more
On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:21:15 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
I agree.
Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any
On 07 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and
observers.
In which theory?
In QM, the vacuum is full of events. Indeed the quantum state of the
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:32:32 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Did you mean to address me, or did you mean to address Chris?
I don't object to any step in UDA. It seems internally consistent and
plausible to me. I'm unsure what
On 07 Mar 2014, at 17:05, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:32:32 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Did you mean to address me, or did you mean to address Chris?
I don't object to any step in UDA. It seems internally
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:48:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15,
On 07 Mar 2014, at 17:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
I've repeatedly answered your question. I define computational
OPERATIONALLY as whatever is necessary and sufficient to actually
compute
But this is what I ask you to define. What do you mean by compute?
the evolving state of the
On 3/6/2014 11:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious
But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a computation (or some
computation) are conscious.
On Friday, March 7, 2014 12:21:15 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
Or is
every case of true randomness an
On 3/7/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:04, Bruno Marchal wrote (to Brent):
On 07 Mar 2014, at 06:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? Or is every
case of true
On 07 Mar 2014, at 18:10, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:48:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal
extinction rate is already 10,000 times the average background rate;
Chris, this is an artificial rate, as useless, except to Greens, as events
cause extinctions, not averages. It's akin to saying of we added all the
average dick lengths on Earth, it'd reach 2/3rds to the Moon. An
On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:59:06 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2014, at 17:05, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
An argument on its own merits is presumably either valid or invalid, and
either sound or unsound. Regarding UDA's soundness: I have no problem
saying Yes Doctor.
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
whatsoever.
Jesse,
Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your
posts.
I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would
argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to
the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different
Liz,
You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to
discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational
reality of which individual minds are just subsets of.
But you have to be careful to understand how mind and reality interact.
When you do you
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
Really I am laughing out loud -- for real. John I would love to see you
try to get into the hard drug distribution black market
Just curious, is there any particular reason you think I haven't already
done so?
On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
Why?
On Friday, March 7, 2014 4:51:26 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
I've repeatedly answered your question. I define computational
OPERATIONALLY as whatever is necessary and sufficient to actually compute
the evolving state of the universe. This guarantees my definition is
CORRECT, and
On 8 March 2014 10:29, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed
pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
On 8 March 2014 10:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to
discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational
reality of which individual minds are just subsets of.
But you have to be
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your
posts.
I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would
argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:49:21 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure I follow. Tegmark said If you repeated the cloning
experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each
time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones
you'd written looked
Hi Bruno
With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different vocabulary.
Really?
the last time I quoted her:
What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise:
whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see.
So, she should
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 9:42:57 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
--
*From:* John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript:
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:39 AM
*Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to
Brent,
Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical
observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose
accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it
would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some
Liz,
No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological assumption.
There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic
from what we can observe. That is true.
But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space
because our mind makes an
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical
observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose
accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it
Jesse,
Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the
typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line looks
longer than C's world line, it is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
Edgar
On Friday, March 7, 2014
Russell,
Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also
similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get different
answers
Edgar
On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:23:46 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the
typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line
looks longer than C's
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:23:15PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also
similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get different
answers
Edgar
Perhaps the similar thing is a mere reflection of the
On Friday, March 7, 2014 2:38:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:
Dear Bruno, I am shocked and saddened to hear what has been done to you.
You have my greatest sympathies.
Thanks Liz. Actually I think we are all victims of this sad and so much
On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all
On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological
assumption.
There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic
from what we can observe. That is true.
It's true of everything. We
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:08:39 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
I feel there's a category error here somewhere...
I wonder what the Dalai Lama would make of Brave New World ?
I think he'd make another killing out of it, on the LA lunch circuit . I
don't really buy that guy. Don't see a lot in the
This is why time has a minus sign in SR. (I believe the usual way this
informally is put is that the space-traveller trades space for time.)
On 8 March 2014 13:26, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Do you
On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:02:51 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 10:29, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
All,
An empty space within which
On 3/7/2014 4:23 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical
observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose
accuracy is confirmed by the
Jesse,
I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world
line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer)
because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting?
Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological
assumption.
There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic
Russell,
Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, each
viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model each
observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they
confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must
On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
All,
An empty space
Liz,
But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter
how good a microscope or telescope we make.
That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is
just a matter of using
Brent,
I agree that we can use our OBSERVATIONS of the dimensional relationships
of particulate events to construct a meaningful THEORY of space. Newton did
it. But Einstein found that it really didn't quite work out and came up
with a new theory. But now we know that doesn't quite work out
Ghibbsa,
I agree with Bruno that physical reality is not primitively real. In my
view the fundamental or primitive level of reality is purely computational
in a dimensionless logico-mathematical space.
The results of these computations are the information states of the
universe, and so
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2014 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
Brent,
But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter
how good a microscope or telescope we make.
That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is
just a matter of
Dear Russel and Kim,
I remember fondly when the translation of Bruno's thesis was being
discussed. I am very happy to see the results of your hard work. Thank you
for doing this! I will be buying a copy of it asap. :-)
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:43:05 AM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
Hi
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:13:39 AM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter
how good a microscope or telescope we make.
That's why I pointed out
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:13:39 AM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter
how good a microscope or telescope we make.
We can't. It's actually
On 8 March 2014 13:02, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical
observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose
accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it
On 8 March 2014 14:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
An empty space within which
On 8 March 2014 15:13, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter
how good a microscope or telescope we make.
That's why I pointed out it's
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
Or is every case of
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
extinction rate is already 10,000 times the average background rate;
Chris, this is an artificial rate, as useless, except to Greens, as events
cause extinctions, not
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:46:58PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, each
viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model each
observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do
On 6 March 2014 21:44, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 23:06, LizR wrote:
On 5 March 2014 20:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You have to show two things:
1) R is transitive - (W,R) respects []A - [][]A
and
2) (W,R) respects []A - [][]A- R
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason
On 6 March 2014 22:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 23:31, LizR wrote:
Let's take 3 worlds A B C making a minimal transitive multiverse. ARB and
BRC implies ARC. So if we assume ARB and BRC we also get ARC
Right.
(if we don't assume this we don't have a
On 6 March 2014 22:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Liz, meanwhile you might try this one, which is a bit more easy than the
transitivity case:
Show that (W,R) respects []A - A if and only if R is ideal.
(I remind you that R is ideal means that there is no cul-de-sac world at
On 8 March 2014 18:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch
Phew!
Problem solved!
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ON-British-boy-builds-fusion-reactor-080314st.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:39 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There's no plausible theory by which clouds could nullify the warming
caused by increased CO2
If not clouds it's crystal clear that SOMETHING is capable of nullifying
the warming caused by increased CO2 because during the
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
--
Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be
taxed and taxed heavily
So you think it likely that people will not voluntarily use less
energy but will
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
You seem innocent of how the drug cartels operate and just how violent
they are.
I not only know they're very violent I know why they're violent. If
government made chocolate bars illegal the demand for chocolate
86 matches
Mail list logo
