Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:47:15 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200209130047.g8D0lK162048@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: ... >> >> > Life is a local increase in order, by definition. >> >> >> >> I don't know about that, I've seen the floor of a stock exchange or >> >> a busy park with lots of kids. That doesn't look like order to me. >> > >> > The stock market is not alive, the people are. >> >> Read carefully, oh admonisher of careful reading. I said "the floor >> of a stock exchage". > > "the floor of the stock exchange" isn't alive, either, the people are. > > Before you escalate, let me generalize my statement for you. > so that you will not feel compelled to do it for me: your > examples are not agregate entities which themselves are > representative of an instance of a life form. You didn't specify the plurality or singularity of your reference to "life" in your original statement. Attempting to move to the singular form now, once the misunderstanding is done, can only be your attempt to demonstrate superiorty even in the absence of such a contest. >> >> Never mind that verifying this is close to impossible, would you >> >> like to tell me just how you learned everyone's presumptions without >> >> first making a bunch of your own? ;) >> > >> > I didn't make a generalization, so your statement is incorrect. >> >> My statement was a question, so your attempted refutation is >> non-sequitor. > > My refutation was of the statement prior to the conjunctive comma. Thus ignoring anything after it. >> Note the use of a question mark. ;) > > Note your use of a conjunctive comma, attempting to force me to > accept your premise by responding either positively or negatively > to your question. Read carefully. The first two words of the statement were "Never mind". This generally means you ignore the statement. >> I think it demonstrates incredible arrogance, to say you can >> act but you don't. It certainly isn't tolerance. > > I posted the calculus of non-repudiation which could be implemented; And this is relevant to anything but your arrogance because...? > if you have a problem with its logic, by all means, critique it. That's walking into your arena with your assumptions and trying to find fault. While my own arrogance appreciates the temptation, the focus of the original topic is lost. Oh, the original topic? Yes... ;) You refuse to deal with the assertion that it is common sense to ignore something you don't like, citing a bunch of mathematical hogwash instead of using simple words to explain your position as to why this is not true. We aren't talking about Schelling points, it's irrelevant to consider game theory, try demonstrating your own principles by explaining in simple terms why you won't deal with this one issue. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Man no sooner discovers a new intelligence than he tries to involve it in his own stupidity. --- Jacques-Yves Cousteau To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200209130047.g8D0lK162048>