Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:58:40 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> 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: <3D814650.C22F6ED8@mindspring.com> References: <200209130047.g8D0lK162048@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote: > 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. "the floor of the stock exchange" isn't alive, the people standing on it are. > > My refutation was of the statement prior to the conjunctive comma. > > Thus ignoring anything after it. Yes; that's how conjunctive statements work: statement_1 && statement_2 There's no need to evaluate statement_2, if statement_1 is false, even if statement_2 does a "read". > >> 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...? It proves that it is not arrogance to believe that I can act. Would you have preferred that I stated that you thinking it doesn't make it true? > 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. On the contrary. I agreed with you very early on. I will do so again, so you can quit beating this dead horse: I agree that it is common sense to ignore something you don't like. Now you can agree with a statement of mine: there exist people who can make valuable contributions, but who do not always exhibit common sense. > 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. I have dealt with the issue before, and I have just dealt with the issue yet again. -- Terry 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?3D814650.C22F6ED8>