Hello...

Hey chaps and chapesses, Thought I'd pop in to see how things are. So what's new in Brin-L land? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Hello...

On Feb 22, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Russell Chapman wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: Hey chaps and chapesses, Thought I'd pop in to see how things are. Hey Charlie! Hey Russel! (And Will and Rob, but I see you guys over in Culture... :p) Are you still in the Med? Not right now, I'm i

Re: Hello...

On Feb 22, 2006, at 2:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would that be Oz-tentacious? Glad to see the standard of puns hasn't improved since I was last here (um... 3 years ago? $deity knows...). Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo

Re: Hello...

On Feb 22, 2006, at 2:56 PM, Steve Sloan wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: > Hey chaps and chapesses, > Thought I'd pop in to see how things are. > So what's new in Brin-L land? > Charlie Hey, Charlie, long time no see! Sir Steve of Sloan! Well, if you'd just turned

Re: unbelievable

On Feb 23, 2006, at 10:36 AM, d.brin wrote: On October 19th, 2001, former Halliburton CEO and now current sitting Vice President, Dick Cheney, christened a new term. Describing the curtailment of civil rights taken for granted by American citizens as the "New Normalcy," Mr. Cheney wa

Re: Semi-OTC Lasers

On Feb 24, 2006, at 12:15 AM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote: To be clear, these particular devices have *some* potential for misuse, but I expect that the next generation of devices that will come on the heels of cheaper devices of this generation will have capabilities that could be problematic fo

Re: Hello...

On Feb 25, 2006, at 5:42 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 2/21/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Feb 22, 2006, at 2:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would that be Oz-tentacious? Glad to see the standard of puns hasn't improved since I was last here (um... 3 years ago? $

Re: Hello...

On Feb 25, 2006, at 6:38 PM, Ritu wrote: Charlie wrote: Weirdest thing. Woke up by the side of the road somewhere, and it was 2006... This Monday I received a huge shock. Tuesday there was another shock lying in wait for me. By Tuesday evening I was hoping that the Universe pays attentio

Re: Hello...

On Feb 26, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Reggie Bautista wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: I have this really weird urge to be ontopic. I'm sure it'll pass... ;) Steve Sloan replied: On topic? What's that? ;-) So would now be a good time to ask if anyone's int

Re: Hello...

On Feb 27, 2006, at 2:02 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: William Taylor wrote: A reread of the Uplift Storm trilogy would be good if we can seperate out the chapters to do a flora and fauna bibliography. This would be useful for the next Jijo novel. This would be good for my monomaniacal t

Re: Hello...

On Feb 27, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: This would be good for my monomaniacal timeline project. I am almost close to placing a calendar date in each Chapter of the Uplift Storm Trilogy :-) Hope it's the metric calendar... ;) It's "

Re: Hello

On Mar 1, 2006, at 7:52 AM, Jo Anne wrote: Hey all (waves at Charlie -- loved those trikeabout updates) Cool, glad you liked them. Strangely enough, I'm not riding the trike much (or at all) at the moment! And yeah, this break from politics is very nice. Could someone email me a br

Re: The real thing (was Re: The Continuing Saga of BD...)

On Mar 3, 2006, at 3:43 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: Among my first words to him were, "Thank you for serving," and "Welcome home." I try to remember to say that to every vet I meet. Perhaps it seems absurd to thank people for serving in a war I oppose, but life is absurd. Good people serve, a

VP not part of Executive Branch?

Now, I'm sure many of the finer points of the US political system are beyond me... but isn't this, like, basic? Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Remake of Omega Man.

On 05/07/2007, at 2:54 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: > > Just ran across this.it's is a remake of the Omega Man that > originally > starred Charlton Heston. > > I Am legend stars Will Smith. The trailer is short but looks > promising. Looks like it's not a remake of the film, but a new adaptati

Re: DRM for porn

On 05/07/2007, at 3:01 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: > This is just too funny not to share: ...porn could be reasonably described as a root kit... Charlie ...who is aware this joke may only work Down Under... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinf

Re: U.S. health care

On 13/07/2007, at 1:01 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > of GDP. If everyone were to get the care available to those with > the very > best insurance policiesthen it would probably jump to 20% or > so...immediately (That assumes that the health care denied by > reasons of > costs represents only

Re: U.S. health care

On 14/07/2007, at 4:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote: >> > >> That assumes you keep providing care the way you do. >> >> Increase preventative medicine and primary nursing, and you reduce >> other healthcare threefold. > > How? ...because hospital stays reduce and recovery times increase. Good prevent

Re: VP not part of Executive Branch?

On 17/07/2007, at 6:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote: >> >> When has an American Citizen been held as an enemy combatant and >> completely isolated? > > I'm not sure that exact thing has happened, but I know that in WWII > Americans citizens, captured in the US have been declared enemy > combatants > a

Re: Deathly Hallows - no spoilers

On 22/07/2007, at 5:38 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > I just finished it. I'm in San Diego, so I lost three hours due to > the time change, but just finished it. It's amazing, wonderful, > deeply moving, and not just everything I hoped for, but far more. > Happy reading to all of you still

Re: Noahide Laws

On 02/08/2007, at 3:17 AM, Dave Land wrote: > >6. Minimize the harm you do to others and yourself. Treat others > as you > would wish to be treated. Surely much better to treat people as *they* wish to be treated? Charlie ...back online finally after moving house, reading all posts bu

Re: Noahide Laws

On 06/08/2007, at 6:49 AM, William T Goodall wrote: >> >> I bet the originators of the "Golden Rule" assumed that people all >> generally wanted to be treated _well_, so "as you wish" would be >> the equivalent of "as they wish". >> > > I think Charlie's point is that what constitutes being treat

Re: Global Warming Mistake

On 14/08/2007, at 8:55 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > On 13 Aug 2007 at 8:54, Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/ >>> revised_temp_data_reduces_glob.html > > As usual... check Realclimate first? > > http://www.re

Re: Another one bites the dust.

On 28/08/2007, at 6:42 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > >> Perhaps the Dems in congress can find the guts to bring Gonzales' >> boss >> to the same decision. They've done it before, and it is widely >> regarded as a good moment in American history. > > Since, according to most polls, Congress's approva

Re: Lunar Eclipse Tuesday Morning

On 28/08/2007, at 12:47 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > Best view in the U.S. the further west you are. Details here: > > Or right now in Oz. Red moon! Charlie My 5th Lunar Eclipse Maru __

Re: Lunar Eclipse Tuesday Morning

On 28/08/2007, at 8:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Were you trying to say something, but were caught by the beauty of the eclipse? :-) Charlie In Melbourne Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Feeling a k'chu-non :-(

Urm... You're losing content somewhere in these posts. Charlie. On 28/08/2007, at 8:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mail

Re: Feeling a k'chu-non :-(

On 28/08/2007, at 10:49 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: > > Charlie Bell wrote: >> You're losing content somewhere in these posts. > > Silly rabbit. Content-free posts are what we're best at around here. Sorry, I should have been more precise. Text-free posts is what I mean

Re: Feeling a k'chu-non :-(

On 28/08/2007, at 11:18 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: > > It is NOT just you. > Ah good. Charlie About To Cycle To Work Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Car free London?

On 15/09/2007, at 6:01 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > What's mysterious about it? People take extra time to get into work, > this costs. Time to work for me: Car: 40 mins Train: 40 mins Tram: 45 mins Bicycle: 25 mins. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia

Re: Car free London?

On 16/09/2007, at 6:21 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > Now, Charlie Rob and I do not live in London, so our experiences do > not directly translate. No, but I did grow up in London, and used a bike pretty much exclusively there too. And it was likewise far quicker by bike there too, because I

Re: Car free London?

On 17/09/2007, at 1:06 PM, Dan Minettte wrote: > > Well, technically, the proposal doesn't force people to walk. > There could > be mass transit on each and every street, I suppose. It's just > that any > realistic implementation of the proposal would force people who are > not > capable

Re: Car free London?

> > Never, ever post a private message to a mailing list. > It is an unconscionable breach of netiquette. Oddly enough, I think that replying to an onlist post offlist is pretty poor netiquette. If you wish to berate someone for their behaviour onlist, do it onlist or not at all. It's called

Re: Car free London?

On 18/09/2007, at 12:34 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > Julia Thompson wrote: >> >> Question: How much does a good bike (good for riding around London) >> cost? >> (Wondering how good a selling point this is; if it pays for itself >> in 2 years, that's a good deal, IMO.) >> > I don't think this

Re: Car free London?

On 18/09/2007, at 1:47 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: > > Finally, are you arguing that those people who do drive in greater > London > are just a bunch of idiots who could do much better if only they > used public > transportation instead? I'll answer the rest later as I'm just heading off to work

Re: Car free London?

On 18/09/2007, at 12:27 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: > > Question: How much does a good bike (good for riding around > London) cost? (Wondering how good a selling point this is; if it > pays for itself in 2 years, that's a good deal, IMO.) Answer one - as much as you want to spend. OK, I'm cur

Re: Car free London?

On 18/09/2007, at 12:19 AM, PAT MATHEWS wrote: > > I tried to re-acquire a bicycle and ride it and found I was no > longer secure > in my balance. You are the perfect candidate to discover the joys of triking. I have read story after story by people who rediscovered the joys of cycling thr

Re: Car free London?

On 18/09/2007, at 1:47 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: > > Calculations show that a car-free inner London scenario equates to > a 49% > reduction in emissions7. Because most London car trips are within > outer > London, changes in inner London boroughs alone were not found to be > sufficient to meet

Re: Netiquette

On 20/09/2007, at 3:58 AM, Dave Land wrote: >> >> I'm not sure what this means. I thought you wanted to discuss the >> ettiquette of online communication? Why do you have to repeatedly >> resort to these ad hominems? > > I sincerely apologize for this and other ad-hominem attacks that I > have r

Re: Netiquette

On 20/09/2007, at 12:17 PM, jon louis mann wrote: > > depends on if it is done in a condescending manner... pointing > out rules be a benefit to other newbies. other things have been > pointed out to me in e-mail that would have embarrassed me if > posted to the list, when it served no

Re: Netiquette

On 21/09/2007, at 6:52 AM, Dave Land wrote: > > "Ad-hominem" used incorrectly, leading to correction. > > Perhaps we would all do well to stick with English? It *is* English. It may be a Latin-rooted description, but many technical words are. Would you say that using scientific or legal term

Re: Netiquette

On 21/09/2007, at 7:40 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > English is, after all, the lingua franca of the Internet. > > And, ipso facto, the sina qua non for this group. > > Semper fidelus, > > Nick Damn you! LOL Charlie Sultana Bran On My Keyboard Maru ___ h

Re: Netiquette

On 21/09/2007, at 7:49 AM, Dave Land wrote: > > Heck no. I appreciate the fact that people on this list want things > said > well, and words used correctly. Yep. Language is one of the defining characters of our species, and it's good to use it well. Better than my friend Allison's lorikeet

Re: Netiquette

On 21/09/2007, at 6:31 PM, Martin Lewis wrote: > > I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were suggesting > something about my mental state. In other words you were attacking my > character rather than the argument. Is this not a perfect example of > an ad hominem? No, because he wasn't

Re: Netiquette

On 22/09/2007, at 4:08 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Horn, John wrote: > >>> Martin Lewis wrote >>> >>> I was using it in reference to this line: >>> >>> "Oh, for Krum's sake, Martin. Take a pill." >>> >>> I don't get the exact meaning but presumed you were >>> suggesting s

Re: ban lawns

On 25/09/2007, at 10:27 PM, Russell Chapman wrote: > Ray Ludenia wrote: >> Maybe in your neck of the woods, Rob. In Melbourne and most of the >> state of Victoria (and much of the rest of Australia), watering lawns >> is a big no-no. > Of course, a significant region of Victoria (not that far fro

Re: ban lawns

On 26/09/2007, at 2:09 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > For much of the past several months we've been in a so-called > "exceptional" drought (apparently that's the level above such things > as "severe" drought and "extreme" drought: whenever I heard that > term on the news I kept expecting some

Re: Signs

On 01/10/2007, at 5:11 PM, Ray Ludenia wrote: > A few sent by my brother-in-law from Africa. > > http://raylud.googlepages.com/africa ...and even here in lovely Victoria there is some spectacularly stupid signage http://www.whittlesealeader.com.au/article/ 2007/04/24/13551_wpv_news.html

Re: Car free London?

On 30/09/2007, at 8:50 PM, Gary Nunn wrote: > > > Holy Cow!! > > I make a post and step away for a few weeks and find this topic ran > rampant > - and I missed it! Yep. I'm still wondering what bits of London are 20 mins apart by car and hours apart by public transport (apart from at 3am, a

Re: Car free London?

On 03/10/2007, at 11:07 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: u >> >> Yep. I'm still wondering what bits of London are 20 mins apart by car >> and hours apart by public transport (apart from at 3am, at which time >> most of London is 20 mins by car and unreachable at all by public >> transport...). > > I though

Re: Hybrid Cars: An unexpected complaint

On 03/10/2007, at 10:23 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: > > Apparently, they're too quiet: > http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt_top.jsp?news_id=ap-d8s1n79o0&; > > The National Federation for the Blind is complaining that when the > cars are running on solely electricity, blind people cannot hear them

Re: Hybrid Cars: An unexpected complaint

On 04/10/2007, at 12:04 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: > > Most of the cyclists I know are responsible and will use their > bells if > they're approaching an intersection with pedestrians waiting to cross. > Banning bicycles is not the answer, penalizing irresponsible > behavior by > cyclists is.

Re: Hybrid Cars: An unexpected complaint

On 04/10/2007, at 12:23 AM, Horn, John wrote: >> Julia Thompson wrote > >> (Most cyclists tend to be >> significantly more safety-conscious than many drivers, I've noticed.) > > Would that be the ones who ride straight through red lights and stop > signs without stopping? That's a particular pet

Re: bikes v. cars

On 04/10/2007, at 11:13 AM, jon louis mann wrote: > > i ride a bike and drive so i can see both sides. i am of the > opinion that both groups exhibit extremely hostile and discourteous > behavior, at least in los angeles. Some do. The biggest problem with car driver in car-based cities is

Re: bikes v. cars

On 05/10/2007, at 8:17 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 03:55 PM Thursday 10/4/2007, jon louis mann wrote: >> The biggest problem with car driver in car-based cities is >> the general ignorance of rules applying to bicycles. >> >> Two abreast is legal just about everywhere, and a bicycle is >> *

Re: Hybrid Cars: An unexpected complaint

On 06/10/2007, at 12:06 AM, Horn, John wrote: >> Charlie Bell wrote >> >> "Like everyone else"? A majority of people in motor vehicles speed. >> Cyclists who do flaunt road rules, flaunt different road >> rules to car drivers, but they're still a

Re: bikes v. cars

On 06/10/2007, at 5:11 AM, Dave Land wrote: > On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:40 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: > >> On 04/10/2007, at 11:13 AM, jon louis mann wrote: >> >>> pedestrians are not much better. i would think anyone ambulating >>> by feet or bike would take

Re: Bionic Woman & Battlestar Galactica

On 06/10/2007, at 1:13 PM, Gary Nunn wrote: > > > > No spoilers > > Is anyone watching the Bionic Woman? I was pleasantly surprised > by it. Yes. Started last Thursday here in Ozland. Has promise. > > Of course Katee Sackhoff, from Battlestar Galactica, plays a > renegade bionic > ba

Re: bikes v. cars

On 09/10/2007, at 3:52 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: > > I have a question about your trip around Australia. Did you only > travel on > low traffic roads, or multi-lane roads, or roads with wide > shoulders that > can easily accommodate a bike? Most roads in Australia are what you'd call "low traf

Re: Oops...

On 09/10/2007, at 12:26 PM, jon louis mann wrote: > > Type O was the original paleolithic blood type. > Type A showed up after agriculture changed our diet from > hunter/gatherer. Ah, the "Blood Type Diet", which is almost certainly pure woo: "Allele O phylogenetic analysis suggests that the mos

Re: bikes v. cars

On 09/10/2007, at 11:52 PM, Dan Minettte wrote: >> > > I agree with that statement, I've just been irritated by the > exception who > insist that, since bikes were better for the environment, rude > actions like > snarling traffic are justified. One of the reasons I asked is that > I wanted

Re: bikes v. cars

On 10/10/2007, at 7:23 AM, jon louis mann wrote: > > i think riders should do as least as much as drivers to accommodate > each other, if for no other reason than they are more vulnerable. > there is a too much hostility and frustration on the road to risk > generating more. those sanctimonious r

Re: Woo was Re: blood type

On 10/10/2007, at 2:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > What is woo? > Woo woo. Magical thinking. Evidence free "medicine" for example. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: bikes v. cars

On 11/10/2007, at 1:45 AM, Horn, John wrote: >> Charlie Bell wrote >> >> "Sanctimonious"? How much of a "snarl-up" is "asking for trouble"? > > Oooo... There's that nerve again. At least it wasn't *me* this time! It's

Re: bikes v. cars

On 11/10/2007, at 2:28 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: > >> What you're saying is that the weak should give up their rights to >> the strong. > > Actually, while "asking for trouble" is a poor choice of words, I > don't > think that he's advocating that the weak should give up rights to the > strong. I

Re: bikes v. cars

On 12/10/2007, at 12:40 AM, Horn, John wrote: >> >> >> It's going to get very tiresome if every time I disagree with >> something strongly, you claim it's a "hit nerve"... > > Looks like I hit ano...<> > > Oh wait... > > Nevermind. > > ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist. > Funny man... :-p Charlie

Re: bikes v. cars

On 12/10/2007, at 10:57 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > which could also stand for "High Profile > Vehicle," i.e., the ones which are subject to > being blown off the road or over on their sides when it gets > windy . . . > What's the difference? That's happened to me once this year (found

Re: What the heck is "Maru"?

On 12/10/2007, at 1:48 PM, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: > I have been reading this list for months, and I don't know what > this is > about. I suppose some kind of in-joke, but would someone explain it to > me? > Ship names. Kobayashi Maru, for example. So as apropos or amusing postscripts, Maru

Re: bikes v. cars

On 13/10/2007, at 1:36 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 09:33 AM Friday 10/12/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: > >> On 12/10/2007, at 10:57 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: >>> >>> >>> which could also stand for "High Profile >>> Vehicle," i.e., the

Re: bikes v. cars

On 13/10/2007, at 11:59 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: >> >> I was being ironic. > > > Me, too! Don't stop now! LOL Fair enough. Bit of a sense of humour failure last night - lost my pannier with wallet, housekeys, work pass, work blackberry, mobile phone... fortunately it was handed in to the

Re: Highlander: The Source - Quick, avert your eyes!

On 15/10/2007, at 11:02 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: > > >> Highlander 2? >> There is no such thing. >> Julia > > > > au contraire.. > > >> From the IMDB: Did you post some text after "from the IMDB"? It mysteriously vanished. Charlie ___ http://www.

Re: 150 MPG from a Toyota Prius

On 23/10/2007, at 3:57 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > I was surprised to see that it's only 67 hp... I drove my mother's > Prius a > while ago and it seemed zippier than that. Lots of torque, I guess. > ...and when you're accelerating hard, both the engine and the motor are working together. Ch

Re: 150 MPG from a Toyota Prius

On 24/10/2007, at 12:46 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: > >> ...and when you're accelerating hard, both the engine and the motor >> are working together. > > Right. People buy a hybrid Lexus to brag about their "green > attitude" and > yet happily kick the pedal to the metal to get most of the 400+ > h

Re: Brin: Fire info

On 24/10/2007, at 1:04 PM, David Brin wrote: > > Ever wonder what happened to civil defense, in an era > of high techHomelandSecurity? It’s guys like me… > heaven help us! Maybe once this dies down and people have a chance to take stock, people in bushfire zones in the US will take a look at

Re: Brin: Fire info

On 25/10/2007, at 2:38 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: >> > Years ago, I watched a Botsuana movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy", > where the bushman hero used an interesting technique to fight an > out-of-control fire: he used fire to start a controlled fire, > creating a barrier of ashes, so that the unco

Re: Shaking!

On 02/11/2007, at 1:16 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: >> > > > This is the last message I have received from Brin-L . . . including > at least one message I sent to the list which has not shown > up. Apparently Dan broke the list somehow . . . :( It's just quiet. Charlie. ___

Re: Religiosity correlates with poverty

On 05/11/2007, at 3:42 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > > So what would most folks think of someone who professed a belief in > God and spent his evenings and weekends drinking and carousing? They'd think he was a pastor in a megachurch... Charlie. ___

Re: Religiosity correlates with poverty

On 06/11/2007, at 4:42 AM, Dave Land wrote: > > In answer to Ronn's question: They might well see him for what he is: > a hypocrite. And, if they were willing to do so, they would see the > hypocrisy in their own lives, and recognize the need in him and > themselves to seek forgiveness and repenta

Re: Religiosity correlates with poverty

On 06/11/2007, at 12:51 PM, Dave Land wrote: > > I have called myself a Christian, but I despise the disease that > crawls > among us and advertises itself by that name. As Gandhi said when asked what he thought of Western Civilization: "It would be a good idea..." and that's how I see modern

Re: Religiosity correlates with poverty

On 06/11/2007, at 4:49 PM, Doug wrote: > Ronn! wrote: > > >> So what would most folks think of someone who professed a belief in >> God and spent his evenings and weekends drinking and carousing? > > > Wouldn't that depend on what particular brand of God this person > believed > in and which pa

Re: Religiosity correlates with poverty

On 07/11/2007, at 1:47 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Doug wrote: > >> Ronn! wrote: >> >> >>> So what would most folks think of someone who professed a belief in >>> God and spent his evenings and weekends drinking and carousing? >> >> >> Wouldn't that depend on what particul

Re: Religiosity correlates with poverty

On 07/11/2007, at 8:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > Would jesus wear a Rolex > Would Jesus wear a Rolex > On His television show-ooh-ooh? You see the face on the tv screen Coming at you every sunday See that face on the billboard That man is me On the cover of the magazine Theres no question

Re: Religiosity correlates with poverty

On 07/11/2007, at 12:32 PM, Dan M wrote: > > >> >> Not about invading other countries in the name of the Lord, Allah >> or any > >> athropomorphic deity... > > Just to be clear, is it the consensus here that no country should ever > interfere with the internal affairs of another? Yet again, a

Re: Religiosity correlates with poverty

On 07/11/2007, at 8:18 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > > I take it that "conservatism" has about as much > relation to being truly conservative as > "religiosity" has to actual religious belief and > how those who believe should live their lives and relate to others? Yep, that's I'd probably agr

Re: $2,000,000,000,000.00

On 14/11/2007, at 9:31 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > Doug wrote: >> >> That's what this war is projected to cost. >> > Which means that the war will cost $0,000,000,000,000.00 - > the dollar is USA's, you can make any dollars you want, and > China will eagerly trade the dollars for their LSD-bind

Re: $2,000,000,000,000.00

On 14/11/2007, at 10:14 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > Charlie Bell wrote: >> >>> Which means that the war will cost $0,000,000,000,000.00 - >>> the dollar is USA's, you can make any dollars you want, and >>> China will eagerly trade the dollars

Re: Tattoos - Scientifical

On 19/11/2007, at 3:24 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: > http://m3.alexweidmann.com/piles/?s=sciencetattoo > > Has to be seen to be believed. That appears to be shamelessly nicked from Carl Zimmer's blog The Loom, where he's been running a series on science tats for a while. Charlie.

Re: Uplift at Yellowstone

On 20/11/2007, at 9:11 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: >> Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Consider Phlebus is my favorite Banks, but I enjoyed >> all of the culture novels. > > I recently finished _Inversion_, which I don't think > is a Culture tale, Yes it is. :-) Charlie. ___

Re: Where the web is heading?

On 23/11/2007, at 7:41 AM, Dave Land wrote: > > Extra points to Julia for (at least implicitly) knowing that > "Craptaculous" is the correct word (with all due respect -- that is to > say, not much -- to Nick): Craptaculous, embiggens and Cromulent are > all > Simpsoneologisms. Cromulent was a

Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)

On 05/12/2007, at 4:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: > > And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. > Hence religion is evil. I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. Charlie ___

Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)

On 04/12/2007, at 11:03 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about > science > and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about > science > is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap > to the >

Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)

On 05/12/2007, at 8:06 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Dec 4, 2007 12:47 PM, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> If it's true scepticism, and not denialism. The US is a leader of >> science in spite of it's religiosity, not because of it. >

Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)

On 05/12/2007, at 8:19 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Dec 4, 2007 12:32 PM, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to >> evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. > > > I th

Re: Correlation v. causality

> > Since they bear the children, you can blame women for > wars.Of course you also have to give them credit for > peace. In this model the low birth rate is the reason Western Europe > has been so peaceful since WW II. Apart from Ireland and Spain... ;) > > Keith Henson Welcome back Keith.

Re: Correlation v. causality

> >> Evolutionary psychology states that *every* human psychological trait >> is either the result of direct selection or a side effect of direct >> selection. (With a bit of possibility of something being fixed due to >> random genetic drift.) > > > This is arguing from a conclusion. The conclusi

Re: Correlation v. causality

On 05/12/2007, at 3:04 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Dec 4, 2007 7:39 PM, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >>> I'll certainly allow that it *may* be true, but >>> it certainly isn't proved -- our understanding of evolution is

Re: Correlation v. causality

On 05/12/2007, at 4:02 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: >> >> >> Nah-ah. Just a fact. No-one knows everything in a field, and lay- >> people often think they have a far better grasp of a technical field >> than they do. > > > Sure. But you don't know what I have or haven't studied about > evolution and >

Re: Correlation v. causality

On 06/12/2007, at 11:09 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > >> those systems through a few simple rules is a challenge, but not >> beyond our capacity. Interestingly, some of the most successful work >> has come out of games and movies - SimCity exhibits some emergence, >> and CGI crowd/battle scenes > > > O

Re: EP/Meme/War model was Correlation v. causality

On 06/12/2007, at 8:45 AM, hkhenson wrote: > At 01:00 PM 12/5/2007, Nick Arnett wrote: >> >> It's great food for thought, but I'd still like to escape the >> circularity. >> Is it just politically incorrect to consider non-Darwinian >> explanations? One can consider them. But one has to act

Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism

On 06/12/2007, at 3:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible > about the > two. Except insofar as Christianity makes claims about how the world is. IIRC, you're a Lutheran, and the American Lutheran church is fairly progressive. But sayin

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >