At least moore has a job.


"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
OK, I guess you won't have to pay reparations then.

BTW, is Bob**** Michael Moore's online persona? They're both fat
assholes with inflated opinions of self worth, lie through their teeth
and AFAIK never sail......

PDW

In article , Scott Vernon
wrote:

I had nothing to do with that, Pete.

SV


"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Scott Vernon
wrote:

I agree, hence the word ''real'' . Besides being anti Jew,
Muslim,
and
Arabic, are there any other groups you hate?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha. *You* are the guys who interned the Nisei
Japanese in WW2 and confiscated their property, in violation of your
own vaunted constitution. From my generally pro-USA POV here in
Australia, looks like you're engaging in a rerun. Feel free to nurse
your hypocrisy and project your biased definitions of what constitutes
a 'real' American, it's pretty funny from here.

PDW

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Why do you place the onus on the believers? Are you suggesting that
the non-believers should be given the benefit of the doubt?

What on earth are you slavering about? He who makes the claim has to back
it
up. If I claim that the moon is made of green cheese, is the onus on you
to
run around trying to disprove it, or would it be valid for you to respond
with something like, "Yeah, sure it is, Wally - prove it!"? If I claim
that
Captain Crunch sails a ship made of cornflakes on an ocean of milk, is the
onus on you to painstakingly search the entire universe, draw a blank, and
thereby disprove my assertion??

You say god made made the universe?

Prove it!


Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers?

Get a clue, Donal - you're out of your depth.


I think that it is very strange that you will not give any scientific
evidence to back up your position. I've repeatedly given evidence to
support my views.

You don't seem to understand that my position is the opposite, in its very
nature, of yours. I'm not making a specific claim that might stand to be
substantiated by evidence. I'm making no claim about the origin of the
universe, and I'm not invoking some imaginary creator. What I'm doing is
critiquing our knowledge system, and thereby critiquing such outlandish
claims as those we have seen in this thread regarding the supposed origins
of the universe. I'm right outside of your box, Donal, and your desire for
me to 'present evidence' tells me that you still haven't noticed.

I'm saying is that the evidence presented by those who seek to state how
the
universe came to be is woefully inadequate. Once again, if not for the
world, then at least for you, I argue my case thus...

From the observations that mankind has made so far, the universe is
mind-bogglingly huge and exceedingly old. We can make highly detailed
observations of it, and draw incredibly accurate inferences concerning its
causal nature. However, we can only resolve to this sort of detail in a
very
local area - Earth and its environs, basically. The rest of it is little
more than a bunch of dots in the sky. We're also attempting to extrapolate
a
life cycle of this most ancient of entities, supposedly billions of years,
from a ridiculously small timeslice of - what - a couple of centuries?
What
mankind is essentially doing is observing a speck of dust for a second,
and
trying to describe what has happened on the whole planet for a year.

Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant.
And
here's the best bit - because we haven't actually observed the data that
we
haven't availed ourselves of yet, we don't even know how much there
actually
is!

In terms of the constructs of our own knowledge system - empricism - we
are
damn-near absolutely clueless!

To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and then
try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with
regard
to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless. Not only do
we know next to bugger all, we don't even know if we really *do* know next
to bugger all!


Wally, on reflection, your post deserves a serious answer.
So here goes....

You seem to be suggesting that we know so little about our environment that
we shouldn't even bother to seek answers.

Let me quote you.
" Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think
is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. "

Then you say :-
" To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and
then
try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with
regard
to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless"

If we all agreed with with your reasoning, then we would be still stuck in
the dark ages. We would not engage in any scientific research because the
task (gap in our knowledge) was so huge.

You depend on the innovations of scientists in your daily life. In fact,
without modern technologly, it is quite possible that you would not be able
to indulge in your passion for art! Modern technology creates the wealth
that allows people to have the disposable income to afford your "art".


Regards


Donal
--

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Why do you place the onus on the believers? Are you suggesting that
the non-believers should be given the benefit of the doubt?

What on earth are you slavering about? He who makes the claim has to back
it
up. If I claim that the moon is made of green cheese, is the onus on you
to
run around trying to disprove it, or would it be valid for you to respond
with something like, "Yeah, sure it is, Wally - prove it!"? If I claim
that
Captain Crunch sails a ship made of cornflakes on an ocean of milk, is the
onus on you to painstakingly search the entire universe, draw a blank, and
thereby disprove my assertion??

You say god made made the universe?

Prove it!


Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers?

Get a clue, Donal - you're out of your depth.


I think that it is very strange that you will not give any scientific
evidence to back up your position. I've repeatedly given evidence to
support my views.

You don't seem to understand that my position is the opposite, in its very
nature, of yours. I'm not making a specific claim that might stand to be
substantiated by evidence. I'm making no claim about the origin of the
universe, and I'm not invoking some imaginary creator. What I'm doing is
critiquing our knowledge system, and thereby critiquing such outlandish
claims as those we have seen in this thread regarding the supposed origins
of the universe. I'm right outside of your box, Donal, and your desire for
me to 'present evidence' tells me that you still haven't noticed.

I'm saying is that the evidence presented by those who seek to state how
the
universe came to be is woefully inadequate. Once again, if not for the
world, then at least for you, I argue my case thus...

From the observations that mankind has made so far, the universe is
mind-bogglingly huge and exceedingly old. We can make highly detailed
observations of it, and draw incredibly accurate inferences concerning its
causal nature. However, we can only resolve to this sort of detail in a
very
local area - Earth and its environs, basically. The rest of it is little
more than a bunch of dots in the sky. We're also attempting to extrapolate
a
life cycle of this most ancient of entities, supposedly billions of years,
from a ridiculously small timeslice of - what - a couple of centuries?
What
mankind is essentially doing is observing a speck of dust for a second,
and
trying to describe what has happened on the whole planet for a year.

Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant.
And
here's the best bit - because we haven't actually observed the data that
we
haven't availed ourselves of yet, we don't even know how much there
actually
is!

In terms of the constructs of our own knowledge system - empricism - we
are
damn-near absolutely clueless!

To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and then
try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with
regard
to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless. Not only do
we know next to bugger all, we don't even know if we really *do* know next
to bugger all!


Wally, on reflection, your post deserves a serious answer.
So here goes....

You seem to be suggesting that we know so little about our environment that
we shouldn't even bother to seek answers.

Let me quote you.
" Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think
is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. "

Then you say :-
" To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and
then
try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with
regard
to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless"

If we all agreed with with your reasoning, then we would be still stuck in
the dark ages. We would not engage in any scientific research because the
task (gap in our knowledge) was so huge.

You depend on the innovations of scientists in your daily life. In fact,
without modern technologly, it is quite possible that you would not be able
to indulge in your passion for art! Modern technology creates the wealth
that allows people to have the disposable income to afford your "art".


Regards


Donal
--

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Why do you place the onus on the believers? Are you suggesting that
the non-believers should be given the benefit of the doubt?

What on earth are you slavering about? He who makes the claim has to back
it
up. If I claim that the moon is made of green cheese, is the onus on you
to
run around trying to disprove it, or would it be valid for you to respond
with something like, "Yeah, sure it is, Wally - prove it!"? If I claim
that
Captain Crunch sails a ship made of cornflakes on an ocean of milk, is the
onus on you to painstakingly search the entire universe, draw a blank, and
thereby disprove my assertion??

You say god made made the universe?

Prove it!


Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers?

Get a clue, Donal - you're out of your depth.


I think that it is very strange that you will not give any scientific
evidence to back up your position. I've repeatedly given evidence to
support my views.

You don't seem to understand that my position is the opposite, in its very
nature, of yours. I'm not making a specific claim that might stand to be
substantiated by evidence. I'm making no claim about the origin of the
universe, and I'm not invoking some imaginary creator. What I'm doing is
critiquing our knowledge system, and thereby critiquing such outlandish
claims as those we have seen in this thread regarding the supposed origins
of the universe. I'm right outside of your box, Donal, and your desire for
me to 'present evidence' tells me that you still haven't noticed.

I'm saying is that the evidence presented by those who seek to state how
the
universe came to be is woefully inadequate. Once again, if not for the
world, then at least for you, I argue my case thus...

From the observations that mankind has made so far, the universe is
mind-bogglingly huge and exceedingly old. We can make highly detailed
observations of it, and draw incredibly accurate inferences concerning its
causal nature. However, we can only resolve to this sort of detail in a
very
local area - Earth and its environs, basically. The rest of it is little
more than a bunch of dots in the sky. We're also attempting to extrapolate
a
life cycle of this most ancient of entities, supposedly billions of years,
from a ridiculously small timeslice of - what - a couple of centuries?
What
mankind is essentially doing is observing a speck of dust for a second,
and
trying to describe what has happened on the whole planet for a year.

Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant.
And
here's the best bit - because we haven't actually observed the data that
we
haven't availed ourselves of yet, we don't even know how much there
actually
is!

In terms of the constructs of our own knowledge system - empricism - we
are
damn-near absolutely clueless!

To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and then
try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with
regard
to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless. Not only do
we know next to bugger all, we don't even know if we really *do* know next
to bugger all!


Wally, on reflection, your post deserves a serious answer.
So here goes....

You seem to be suggesting that we know so little about our environment that
we shouldn't even bother to seek answers.

Let me quote you.
" Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think
is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. "

Then you say :-
" To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and
then
try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with
regard
to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless"

If we all agreed with with your reasoning, then we would be still stuck in
the dark ages. We would not engage in any scientific research because the
task (gap in our knowledge) was so huge.

You depend on the innovations of scientists in your daily life. In fact,
without modern technologly, it is quite possible that you would not be able
to indulge in your passion for art! Modern technology creates the wealth
that allows people to have the disposable income to afford your "art".


Regards


Donal
--

Donal wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that we know so little about our
environment that we shouldn't even bother to seek answers.

Let me quote you.
"Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we
think is still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically
insignificant. "

This has nothing to do with whether or not we should try to get more data -
it's a statement about our *present* dataset.


Then you say :-
"To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second,
and then try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable
conclusion" with regard to - how the universe came to exist is
stupefyingly pointless"

Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not we should try to get more
data.


If we all agreed with with your reasoning, then we would be still
stuck in the dark ages. We would not engage in any scientific
research because the task (gap in our knowledge) was so huge.

Your assessment that I have suggested that we shouldn't try to acquire more
data is incorrect.


You depend on the innovations of scientists in your daily life. In
fact, without modern technologly, it is quite possible that you would
not be able to indulge in your passion for art! Modern technology
creates the wealth that allows people to have the disposable income
to afford your "art".

Ignoratio elenchi. You're arguing against something I didn't say. My
critique was concerned with what we do with our present dataset (make
outlandish claims about the universe). At no point did I advocate that we
don't try to expand our dataset - in fact, I don't think I even raised the
issue.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

In article , Wally
wrote:

Donal wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that we know so little about our
environment that we shouldn't even bother to seek answers.

Let me quote you.
"Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we
think is still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically
insignificant. "

This has nothing to do with whether or not we should try to get more data -
it's a statement about our *present* dataset.


Then you say :-
"To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second,
and then try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable
conclusion" with regard to - how the universe came to exist is
stupefyingly pointless"

Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not we should try to get more
data.


If we all agreed with with your reasoning, then we would be still
stuck in the dark ages. We would not engage in any scientific
research because the task (gap in our knowledge) was so huge.

Your assessment that I have suggested that we shouldn't try to acquire more
data is incorrect.


You depend on the innovations of scientists in your daily life. In
fact, without modern technologly, it is quite possible that you would
not be able to indulge in your passion for art! Modern technology
creates the wealth that allows people to have the disposable income
to afford your "art".

Ignoratio elenchi. You're arguing against something I didn't say. My
critique was concerned with what we do with our present dataset (make
outlandish claims about the universe). At no point did I advocate that we
don't try to expand our dataset - in fact, I don't think I even raised the
issue.

Donal's desperately trying to drag a red herring across the thread.

PDW

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Wally, on reflection, your post deserves a serious answer.
So here goes....

You seem to be suggesting that we know so little about our environment that
we shouldn't even bother to seek answers.

I don't see how you could possible draw that conclusion. In fact, his argument
was quite the opposite.



Let me quote you.
" Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think
is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. "

Then you say :-
" To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and
then
try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with
regard
to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless"

If we all agreed with with your reasoning, then we would be still stuck in
the dark ages. We would not engage in any scientific research because the
task (gap in our knowledge) was so huge.

Why do you say that? Do you only work on problems where the solution is
trivial? I suppose that might be the case: you triviallized all of evolution
by simply saying, "I thought about it, and it doesn't work."

I suppose that might be the case: you triviallized all of evolution
by simply saying, "I thought about it, and it doesn't work."

Consider that he also thought about buying a sailboat AFTER owning a
powerboat....and bought a Beneteau.

RB

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ...
"Joe" wrote in message |
| We know time travel is possiable if we can go faster than light.

No Joe... we definitely don't "Know" that.......

|
| Physics 101 boobsie, did you skip class?

Bob probably didn't finish high school.... neither did I!

So what, Neither did I. at 16 9th or 10th grade I joined the US Navy.
Like you I was bored to death.


Don't base your assumptions of intellect on the schooling offered in your
country.... it's been proven to be very unreliable.

No kidding.



I'm more than willing to discuss any topic with you Joe.... I have a grade 9
education. Do you think I'm stupid?

Never said you were, my comment was to boobpimp.

I just passed an interview described by
my peers who failed it as a grueling 45 minute interrogation.... I was
accepted and awarded the position in 15 minutes. They have diplomas inn
Engineering..... I have only field experience and am self taught.

Thats great, many corporations will not even talk to you without a
degree.


I agree 100%. Daily I work with some of the countrys leading
engineers. I own a recruiting firm and place them with many of the
USA's fortune 500 companies.

I've learned that many times a Phd stands for Piled higher and deeper,
some are total idiots.


I believe intelligence is measured by ones willingness to assimilate data
and process that information in a logical manner..... not by degrees issued
by institutions.

BTW - I had to go to summer school to pass grade 9.... ;-) Barely made the
grade... it bored the heck out of me.

Well while you were in summer school I was sailing the pacific,
focused so much on sea skills that I became the youngest 1000 ton
freight and towing master in the USA at the time.


CM

Joe

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..


Donal's desperately trying to drag a red herring across the thread.

Peter! You must be one of the dullest persons on the planet!

What is wrong with a bit of discussion? Have you no sense of *FUN* at all?


You really need to relax a bit! .... Honestly.


Regards


Donal
--