Dave wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:42:47 -0600, "Jolly Roger"
said:

Popular notions are always wrong. Yes, "always!"

Now, you take that popular notion that the earth is approximately round....

In European the popular notion was the world was flat. for several
hundreds of years the popular notion in Europe was that the world was flat.

Several hundred years before Columbus, the popular notion in Europe was
the world was flat. At the time of Columbus the popular notion was just
beginning to change. So popular notion are not always correct

Earlier the popular notion was a theory of chemical bonding called
Phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston) It was a popular
theory that everyone believed in. It retarded the true understanding of
Chemistry for decades. Could it be that the popular theory of global
warming is like the Phlogiston theory and preventing a true
understanding of climatology?

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:15:21 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said:

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.
The cows in WI win a lot then, huh?
We're smart enough to not let them vote, anymore.

You sure of that? Doesn't seem to be the case in neighboring Minnesota,
where there are more ballots counted in some counties than there were people
voting.

Sounds like Illinois...

Cheers
Martin

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:46:29 -0500, Marty said:

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:21:51 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?
Have you considered the possibility that you could be out of step?
There is a definite probability, greater than 0.5 that I am indeed "out
of step", IMHO of course. Given that, I still fail to see the bearing
on an opinion poll vis-a-vis the probability of a hypothesis regarding
global warming being correct.

Might there be a more than remote possibility that those not out of step are
correct?


Well there is alway the possibility, however the majority opinion of
some poll does not constitute a valid scientific argument. An opinion
poll merely tells one the feeling of the masses, but has little if
anything to do with the "correctness" of anything other than validating
or invalidating an hypothesis about the majority opinion.

Cheers
Martin

?
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:42:47 -0600, "Jolly Roger"

said:

Popular notions are always wrong. Yes, "always!"

Now, you take that popular notion that the earth is approximately
round....

FYE: A notion is a Conception, an Impression, Imagination, Opinion,
Doctrine, Belief, Supposition, a Thought. Notions are theories, not proven
or observable, not a Truth, Reality, Fact, or Actuality.

A notion may be true or false, but notions that gain popular support before
being proven or observed are always wrong.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:39:35 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Significant levels of privacy can still exist in the system I propose.

I understand that what you're proposing is that every individual's vote be
made public in a manner that will allow the authorities to determine how
that individual voted. Am I misunderstanding?

No, I am proposing that each individual's vote be made public in a manner
that will allow that voter to determine how their vote was recorded. A
significant level of privacy would exist, as the actual identity of each
number-holder would be highly confidential, and would only lead to
"discovery" in the event of a court challenge to the outcome of an election.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:08:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

the actual identity of each
number-holder would be highly confidential, and would only lead to
"discovery" in the event of a court challenge to the outcome of an
election.

And experience shows that gummint bureaucrats will never sneak a peak at
the
information otherwise, right, even if their boss asks? Never leak
information about how an individual voted to the press for political
purposes, right?

"The New York Times reported today that John Schmidt of Chicago Illinois
voted for John McCain in the recent Presidential election."

I'm trembling at the earth-shaking consequences of such a leak, Dave.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:08:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

the actual identity of each
number-holder would be highly confidential, and would only lead to
"discovery" in the event of a court challenge to the outcome of an
election.

And experience shows that gummint bureaucrats will never sneak a peak at
the
information otherwise, right, even if their boss asks? Never leak
information about how an individual voted to the press for political
purposes, right?


Using words like never and always tend to deflate your arguments, as they
are not intellectually honest.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:08:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

the actual identity of each
number-holder would be highly confidential, and would only lead to
"discovery" in the event of a court challenge to the outcome of an
election.

And experience shows that gummint bureaucrats will never sneak a peak at
the
information otherwise, right, even if their boss asks? Never leak
information about how an individual voted to the press for political
purposes, right?


Using words like never and always tend to deflate your arguments, as they
are not intellectually honest.



Isn't stating they are "not intellectually honest" tantamount to saying they
are "never intellectually honest?" Duh!

--
Gregory Hall

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:26:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

"The New York Times reported today that John Schmidt of Chicago Illinois
voted for John McCain in the recent Presidential election."

I'm trembling at the earth-shaking consequences of such a leak, Dave.

Let's expand the story a little bit.

"Mr. Schmidt had been under consideration for a senior level career post
in
Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in the incoming administration,
but apparently no longer is. An Obama spokesman said the recent disclosure
of Mr. Schmidt's vote in the last election played no part in the rejection
of Mr. Schmidt for the position."

I fail to see a problem worth getting worked-up about. Sufficient penalties
could be imposed upon those who leak voter-ID -- penalties with teeth -- as
to be an actual deterrent. But let's look at the concept further:

The Declaration of Independence was not signed "Anonymous."
We know exactly how each and every Senator, Representative and President
votes on each and every Bill that passes before them and either does, or
does not, become law.

The actual practice of Democracy requires individuals willing to take
responsibility for how they vote, regardless of the consequences.

Dave wrote in
:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:26:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

"The New York Times reported today that John Schmidt of Chicago
Illinois voted for John McCain in the recent Presidential election."

I'm trembling at the earth-shaking consequences of such a leak, Dave.

Let's expand the story a little bit.

"Mr. Schmidt had been under consideration for a senior level career
post in Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in the incoming
administration, but apparently no longer is. An Obama spokesman said
the recent disclosure of Mr. Schmidt's vote in the last election
played no part in the rejection of Mr. Schmidt for the position."


Mr Schmidt's IRS audit is scheduled for Thursday at 10AM.