|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article 1110519448.701b72c2e1f5e9e9ec659957df8742c3@terane ws, Nisarel at wrote on 3/11/05 12:37 AM: KMAN wrote: I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is ... what life is like in Texas and Florida. Heh. Well, I recently took a group to South Beach and I have to say that we felt quite safe and had a great time there. All of the front line people in the service industry and particularly the public transit workers were much more helpful and friendly than here. I actually nominated Miami-Dade for an award. And it definitely didn't have the feel of a gun culture...everyone seemed to be having too much fun to be worried about carrying a gun. BWHAHAHAHAAH! Well, you really stepped on your generative organ this time. Guess which state STARTED the liberalization of CCW? Guess which state has the LARGEST NUMBER of citizens carrying concealed handguns? Florida. Yes, I know Scotty. And I know about Jeb Bush. I'm Canadian. I probably know more about Florida than most Floridians. I'm just being honest about our experience in South Beach. The people were kind, and I did not sense any gun culture there. I'm also aware that South Beach is a pretty unique area. That's why they call it a CONCEALED weapon. You were without a doubt in the presence of several people who were armed, and the REASON you felt safe is BECAUSE of Florida's CCW program, which radically reduced street crime, particularly in Miami and its environs. Oh, I could see various crimes taking place right in front of my eyes. But it was the type of community where people walk with their head up and say hello, and don't act like they'll whip out a semi-auto and blow you away if you look at them wrong. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote: KMAN wrote: I actually nominated Miami-Dade for an award. And it definitely didn't have the feel of a gun culture...everyone seemed to be having too much fun to be worried about carrying a gun. Well, it is hard to carry a concealed handgun in your Speedo... Not if you know how... I'm sure that's where you carry yours. In fact, I have no doubt that your gun has many strange sources of your own DNA all over it. |
On 11-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:
Do you REALLY want to leave that hanging out there like that? You really are making the life of the would-be comic too easy.... He has it hanging in the back - for him, that looks normal. Mike |
On 11-Mar-2005, "KMAN" wrote:
So you actually thought that I believed the guns are in a rack on the counter next to the gum and you just buy one? Before you give up on how trivial it is to buy a gun, check into the lack or regulations or rules on private sales in some states. Mike |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 11-Mar-2005, "KMAN" wrote: So you actually thought that I believed the guns are in a rack on the counter next to the gum and you just buy one? Before you give up on how trivial it is to buy a gun, check into the lack or regulations or rules on private sales in some states. Mike I know, that was my whole point...that is too easy. |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Thus biometry is an aspect of morphology. One measures the relative sizes of the form and structure of organisms. Without the form and structure of the organism, there is nothing to measure, and biometry is pointless. Thus, morphology inherently includes size as a component of form and structure. Weiser meets a scientist: Scientist: Here we have categorized the specimens according to morphological similarities. These two, for example, are similar as they are both spherical. Weiser: They can't both be spherical - they aren't the same size! Scientist: Er... Now these specimens are all similar due to their conical shape. Weiser: They can't all be conical - they aren't the same size! Scientist: Hmm... finally, the remainder of these specimens are similar in that they are all cylindrical. Weiser: They can't all be cylindrical - THEY AREN'T THE SAME SIZE. Scientist: Security... SECURITY You are both a bull****ter and an idiot. Uh huh. Try this: Scientist: Here we have categorized the specimens according to morphological similarities. These two, for example, are similar as they are both spherical. Me: True, the gross morphological similarity of the form is that of a sphere, however, they are morphologically different because sample one is two micrometers in diameter while sample two is two meters in diameter. This biometric measurement suggests that they are not the same organism. Further, while sample one shows a structure of a non-vertebrate bacterial form, sample two shows the structure of vertebrate organism similar to a blowfish. Hm. Amusing but uninteresting display of ignorance. How about Ardipithecus ramidus and australopithecus anamensis and australopithecus afarensis and australopithecus africanus and australopithecus garhi and paranthropus aethiopicus and paranthropus boisei and paranthropus robustus and homo rudolfensis and homo heidelbergensis and homo erectus and homo habilis and homo ergaster and homo neanderthalensis? " They are hominids - human ancestors, early humans not human beings. It says so in the web page. Interesting that you excised the QUOTE from the Smithsonian website which clearly refers to them as "earlier humans." "The phylogenetic tree below shows one reconstruction of the relationships among early human species, as we best know them today." Source: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanor...ha/a_tree.html Give it up, you're beaten. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott says: ================ Well, it is hard to carry a concealed handgun in your Speedo... Not if you know how... ====================== Do you REALLY want to leave that hanging out there like that? You really are making the life of the would-be comic too easy.... "This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun." -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut (perhaps just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights. Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun rights or religious freedom. Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre things as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes that could hardly be termed far-left. Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march Thus, I am correct. Only partly. Even a blind hog finds a acorn occasionally. but you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is that they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe group of kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's leftist agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise march. Wow, these are some cold-blooded creeps Yes, indeed they are. ...deliberately going out of their way to defend nazis all for the purpose of making it look like they are interested in civil liberties when really all they are doing is trying to fool Scott into thinking they are interested in civil liberties when really then are just pursuing a leftist-socialist agenda. It's not me they are fooling, but they do manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the illiterati. However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right of religious students to pray in school That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school. Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are entitled to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are leading the prayers. Perhaps they believe that a student should have the right to attend school without being marginalized for being an atheist. You'd have to ask them. Perhaps. But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion. You must learn to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging in or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as the Constitution requires them to tolerate such things. or defense of individual landowners property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a good fit. In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our preeminent and most jealously guarded civil liberties. That's the problem with the ACLU, it only considers a "civil liberty" to be something that forwards their leftist-socialist/collectivist agenda. They are wrong. the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from gun nuts. Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the civil liberty to own a gun. Once again, it's the collectivist/socialist/leftist agenda at work to the denigration of individual civil liberties that makes the ACLU dangerous and wrong. or the rights of the unborn Perhaps there's some consideration of the rights of the born with regard to what happens to the unborn. Perhaps. And yet they see no nuance. Their position seems to be one of supporting abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy, including the instant before birth without any consideration for the life of the unborn child. That's rather less than "some consideration" for the unborn. and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their leftist agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent. Perhaps because you are confused about the concept of civil liberties, not sure. Evidently you are confused about the concept of civil liberties. Civil liberties embrace ALL of the rights and liberties that individuals enjoy, not just some sub-set that fits into a liberal-socialist agenda that they can try to twist into some "collective" civil right. Fact is that there is no such thing as a "collective" civil right. All civil rights are individual in nature and applied to individuals. Thus, the infringement of any individual civil liberty is as bad as the infringement of any other individual civil liberty. All must be protected with equal vigor. The ACLU however, doesn't believe in protecting ALL civil liberties, they pick and choose a select set of civil liberties to defend that happens to forward their leftist-socialist agenda. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: What's particularly silly here is the idea that I would try to "fool" Scotty "Gun Nut" Weiser regarding the process of purchasing a gun. Obviously (OBVIOUSLY) I knew that Scotty would be familiar with what it takes to buy a gun, since he brags about his own guns on a routine basis. I was must pulling his chain about how easy it is to get a gun (and it IS pretty damned easy!) by comparing it to buying gum. It's more like renting a tuxedo ;-) The question is not what I know, it's what he knows. It's hardly uncommon for know-nothing hoplophobes to spout anti-gun rhetoric and cite specious anti-gun information without actually having a clue. So you actually thought that I believed the guns are in a rack on the counter next to the gum and you just buy one? It would not be an unprecedented show of ignorance. You are free to simply admit that you are wrong. Give it, Scotty, this is totally disingenuous and you are acting like a petty fool. Don't make stupid, overbroad proclamations and expect to get away with it while I'm around. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
So, when some group of robbers is planning to knock off a bank, they don't make different plans depending on whether or not they are going to experience armed resistance? Get real. Of course they do. There you go. Your implication is akin to the long-discarded argument "When rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it." and most of the time, as most bank robbers are single individuals, not gangs, they will deliberately choose banks that do NOT have armed guards because they don't want to get killed. Most banks today do not employ armed guards because they think that it will provoke a confrontation, and since the federal government insures the money, they'd rather just give the crook the money and let him walk. And usually that's a good plan, and nobody gets hurt. OK. Sometimes, however, particularly violent robbers decide to kill witnesses anyway, and when that happens, not having any armed people in the bank ends up costing many lives. How often does it happen that bank robbers decide to kill witnesses and those witnesses would have been saved had there been a Scotty in the crowd ready to draw and fire? Once is enough, if I'm in the bank. I'm not going to disarm myself and allow myself to be put at risk for execution just because you're paranoid that you might get shot in the ensuing gun battle. That's the risk you take when you walk out your front door in the morning. If you don't like the odds, then stay home or carry your own gun. The solution is obvious: Banks should retain armed guards, but they should be undercover, in plain clothes, and under orders not to do anything other than cooperate unless and until the robber starts threatening to shoot people. Once it becomes known that someone, if not several someones in any bank is highly likely to be armed, but unidentifiable, crooks will be much more reluctant to rob banks in the first place Um. No. It will work once or twice, and once the new policy is known, they'll start treating every bank just as they would a bank with regular armed guards, and assume that blasting away will be part of the robbery. Not usually. The MO of the typical bank robber is to be low-key so that nobody but the robber and the teller know there is a robbery in progress. They want money, and they want to get away to spend it, which makes it unlikely that they will engage in gunplay, which draws immediate attention. If I'm going to die in such a rampage, I'm at least going to go out trying to put down the killer, not on my knees with a bullet in the back of my head, and I'll do it any way I can. If I don't have a gun, I'll use a knife, or a chair, or a pen or any weapon available including my teeth and fingernails. I'm sure you are dreaming of the day! Nah. But being mentally prepared to defend onesself does tend to keep one out of trouble. For example, I still have the cop habit of sitting in my car for a few moments while watching the inside of the convenience store before I go in, just so I don't walk in on a robbery in progress. Tactical planning and situational awareness can keep you out of a lot of trouble. I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is not worth anything. You weren't in the Luby's cafeteria, or Columbine or at any of the other mass murders worldwide. You might believe differently if it was your life on the line. I don't think so Scotty. Oh, I think you would. You'd be insane not to. In fact, I don't think you'll hear a lot of Columbine surivivors saying that the lesson they learned from it was they should become gun nuts themselves. Actually, many people, including several students who were there, said they wished that somebody, anybody in that school at the time had had a gun. I talked to several of them the day of the shootings. When you don't need a gun, having one is innocuous and harmless. Until innocent people end up dead. Way more innocent people end up dead because there was not some law-abiding citizen around with a gun than have every been killed by "friendly fire" during a gunfight, by many orders of magnitude. When you need one, however, nothing else will do. If your goal in life is to kill people, absolutely. So, what's your trigger point? How far would someone have to go before you'd kill them with a gun? I've never met anybody who was able to honestly say that they would never, ever, under any circumstances use a gun to kill a criminal. What would it take for you? The imminent rape and murder of your child, perhaps? What you appear to be incapable of understanding is the difference between being forced to use deadly physical force in order to save someone's life and your idiotic notion that just because someone carries a gun, and knows how to use it, they are champing at the bit to kill someone. I have a fire extinguisher in my car, but that doesn't mean I hope it catches on fire. Your comments are nothing more than lame attempts at demonization because you are intellectually incapable of defending any sort of rational anti-gun position. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut (perhaps just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights. Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun rights or religious freedom. Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre things as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes that could hardly be termed far-left. Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march Thus, I am correct. Only partly. Even a blind hog finds a acorn occasionally. I'm guessing you've gotten to know a lot of blind hogs in a way that few can understand. but you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is that they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe group of kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's leftist agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise march. Wow, these are some cold-blooded creeps Yes, indeed they are. ...deliberately going out of their way to defend nazis all for the purpose of making it look like they are interested in civil liberties when really all they are doing is trying to fool Scott into thinking they are interested in civil liberties when really then are just pursuing a leftist-socialist agenda. It's not me they are fooling, but they do manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the illiterati. Why would the ACLU go to all the trouble of establishing their organization just to pull the wool over the eyes of the illiterati? However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right of religious students to pray in school That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school. Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are entitled to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are leading the prayers. Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with whatever the court has to say on an issue. Perhaps they believe that a student should have the right to attend school without being marginalized for being an atheist. You'd have to ask them. Perhaps. Mm. But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion. It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil liberties. You must learn to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging in or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as the Constitution requires them to tolerate such things. If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody would even know they were praying. or defense of individual landowners property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a good fit. In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our Who is "our" here? preeminent and most jealously guarded civil liberties. That's the problem with the ACLU, it only considers a "civil liberty" to be something that forwards their leftist-socialist/collectivist agenda. They are wrong. Or it could be that the right wing agenda is all about reducing civil liberties in puruist of a narrow agenda. the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from gun nuts. Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the civil liberty to own a gun. It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties. Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you might well expect the ACLU to disagree. Once again, it's the collectivist/socialist/leftist agenda at work to the denigration of individual civil liberties that makes the ACLU dangerous and wrong. Or the right-wing agenda of "more guns and more jesus" is a threat to civil liberties and the ACLU is just doing their job taking an objective approach to issues regardless of whether or not Scott Weiser has sent them death threats. or the rights of the unborn Perhaps there's some consideration of the rights of the born with regard to what happens to the unborn. Perhaps. And yet they see no nuance. You are starting to undersatnd the ACLU. Don't you think Holocaust survivors were mad as hell to see the ACLU defending the right of Nazis to march through their streets? Their position seems to be one of supporting abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy, including the instant before birth without any consideration for the life of the unborn child. That's rather less than "some consideration" for the unborn. I don't think that's quite their position. and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their leftist agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent. Perhaps because you are confused about the concept of civil liberties, not sure. Evidently you are confused about the concept of civil liberties. Civil liberties embrace ALL of the rights and liberties that individuals enjoy, not just some sub-set that fits into a liberal-socialist agenda that they can try to twist into some "collective" civil right. Take your finger off the trigger...that's it...relax Scotty...just place the gun on the table...that's it..... Fact is that there is no such thing as a "collective" civil right. All civil rights are individual in nature and applied to individuals. Thus, the infringement of any individual civil liberty is as bad as the infringement of any other individual civil liberty. All must be protected with equal vigor. The ACLU however, doesn't believe in protecting ALL civil liberties, they pick and choose a select set of civil liberties to defend that happens to forward their leftist-socialist agenda. They have an agenda to be sure, but it's clearly not leftist-socialist. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: What's particularly silly here is the idea that I would try to "fool" Scotty "Gun Nut" Weiser regarding the process of purchasing a gun. Obviously (OBVIOUSLY) I knew that Scotty would be familiar with what it takes to buy a gun, since he brags about his own guns on a routine basis. I was must pulling his chain about how easy it is to get a gun (and it IS pretty damned easy!) by comparing it to buying gum. It's more like renting a tuxedo ;-) The question is not what I know, it's what he knows. It's hardly uncommon for know-nothing hoplophobes to spout anti-gun rhetoric and cite specious anti-gun information without actually having a clue. So you actually thought that I believed the guns are in a rack on the counter next to the gum and you just buy one? It would not be an unprecedented show of ignorance. You are free to simply admit that you are wrong. I'll ask again. When you read my comment about buying guns and buying a pack of gum, did you honestly believe that I was intending to communicate that there is in reality no difference in the process between buying gum and buying a gun? Yes or no. Give it, Scotty, this is totally disingenuous and you are acting like a petty fool. Don't make stupid, overbroad proclamations and expect to get away with it while I'm around. You have gone from acting like a petty fool to being a petty fool. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: So, when some group of robbers is planning to knock off a bank, they don't make different plans depending on whether or not they are going to experience armed resistance? Get real. Of course they do. There you go. Your implication is akin to the long-discarded argument "When rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it." ?!?!?!?! and most of the time, as most bank robbers are single individuals, not gangs, they will deliberately choose banks that do NOT have armed guards because they don't want to get killed. Most banks today do not employ armed guards because they think that it will provoke a confrontation, and since the federal government insures the money, they'd rather just give the crook the money and let him walk. And usually that's a good plan, and nobody gets hurt. OK. Sometimes, however, particularly violent robbers decide to kill witnesses anyway, and when that happens, not having any armed people in the bank ends up costing many lives. How often does it happen that bank robbers decide to kill witnesses and those witnesses would have been saved had there been a Scotty in the crowd ready to draw and fire? Once is enough, if I'm in the bank. I'm not going to disarm myself and allow myself to be put at risk for execution just because you're paranoid that you might get shot in the ensuing gun battle. That's the risk you take when you walk out your front door in the morning. If you don't like the odds, then stay home or carry your own gun. Sorry Scotty, I'm going to continue going to the bank...and...shudder...I won't be carrying a gun. The solution is obvious: Banks should retain armed guards, but they should be undercover, in plain clothes, and under orders not to do anything other than cooperate unless and until the robber starts threatening to shoot people. Once it becomes known that someone, if not several someones in any bank is highly likely to be armed, but unidentifiable, crooks will be much more reluctant to rob banks in the first place Um. No. It will work once or twice, and once the new policy is known, they'll start treating every bank just as they would a bank with regular armed guards, and assume that blasting away will be part of the robbery. Not usually. The MO of the typical bank robber is to be low-key so that nobody but the robber and the teller know there is a robbery in progress. They want money, and they want to get away to spend it, which makes it unlikely that they will engage in gunplay, which draws immediate attention. Unless the new Scott Weiser policy is in effect in which case they'll have to assume everyone in the bank needs to be shot. If I'm going to die in such a rampage, I'm at least going to go out trying to put down the killer, not on my knees with a bullet in the back of my head, and I'll do it any way I can. If I don't have a gun, I'll use a knife, or a chair, or a pen or any weapon available including my teeth and fingernails. I'm sure you are dreaming of the day! Nah. But being mentally prepared to defend onesself note: Scotty's code for "dreaming of the day" is "being mentally prepared to defend onesself " does tend to keep one out of trouble. For example, I still have the cop habit of sitting in my car for a few moments while watching the inside of the convenience store before I go in, just so I don't walk in on a robbery in progress. Tactical planning and situational awareness can keep you out of a lot of trouble. It can also get you into a mental institution. I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is not worth anything. You weren't in the Luby's cafeteria, or Columbine or at any of the other mass murders worldwide. You might believe differently if it was your life on the line. I don't think so Scotty. Oh, I think you would. You'd be insane not to. Only in your bizarro world. In fact, I don't think you'll hear a lot of Columbine surivivors saying that the lesson they learned from it was they should become gun nuts themselves. Actually, many people, including several students who were there, said they wished that somebody, anybody in that school at the time had had a gun. I talked to several of them the day of the shootings. Geezus, I bet that messed them up real good (talking to you). When you don't need a gun, having one is innocuous and harmless. Until innocent people end up dead. Way more innocent people end up dead because there was not some law-abiding citizen around with a gun than have every been killed by "friendly fire" during a gunfight, by many orders of magnitude. Innocent people end up dead because someone shoots them. When you need one, however, nothing else will do. If your goal in life is to kill people, absolutely. So, what's your trigger point? How far would someone have to go before you'd kill them with a gun? I've never met anybody who was able to honestly say that they would never, ever, under any circumstances use a gun to kill a criminal. You've never asked me anything along those lines. I don't think you even have a clue as to my views on this issue. I never said I would not take the life of another human being, or that using a gun to do that is something I would never do. I don't like guns. I don't like gun nuts. I don't like people getting shot. What would it take for you? The imminent rape and murder of your child, perhaps? That would do. What you appear to be incapable of understanding is the difference between being forced to use deadly physical force in order to save someone's life and your idiotic notion that just because someone carries a gun, and knows how to use it, they are champing at the bit to kill someone. Unless your persona here is a complete put-on, that's exactly how you come across. Like a classic ex-cop with a hate for the world and a grudge in his pocket, longing for the day he can blast away and maybe be a hero. I have a fire extinguisher in my car, but that doesn't mean I hope it catches on fire. Er, good, Scotty. Your comments are nothing more than lame attempts at demonization because you are intellectually incapable of defending any sort of rational anti-gun position. The fact that you think a love of life needs to be defended shows how twisted you are. |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article 1110519448.701b72c2e1f5e9e9ec659957df8742c3@terane ws, Nisarel at wrote on 3/11/05 12:37 AM: KMAN wrote: I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is ... what life is like in Texas and Florida. Heh. Well, I recently took a group to South Beach and I have to say that we felt quite safe and had a great time there. All of the front line people in the service industry and particularly the public transit workers were much more helpful and friendly than here. I actually nominated Miami-Dade for an award. And it definitely didn't have the feel of a gun culture...everyone seemed to be having too much fun to be worried about carrying a gun. BWHAHAHAHAAH! Well, you really stepped on your generative organ this time. Guess which state STARTED the liberalization of CCW? Guess which state has the LARGEST NUMBER of citizens carrying concealed handguns? Florida. Yes, I know Scotty. And I know about Jeb Bush. I'm Canadian. I probably know more about Florida than most Floridians. I'm just being honest about our experience in South Beach. The people were kind, and I did not sense any gun culture there. I'm also aware that South Beach is a pretty unique area. Again, merely because you did not "sense" something does not mean that guns were all around you. They were. You can bet on it. The fact that people don't openly display them is merely proof that your "gun culture" appellation is spurious. That's why they call it a CONCEALED weapon. You were without a doubt in the presence of several people who were armed, and the REASON you felt safe is BECAUSE of Florida's CCW program, which radically reduced street crime, particularly in Miami and its environs. Oh, I could see various crimes taking place right in front of my eyes. But it was the type of community where people walk with their head up and say hello, and don't act like they'll whip out a semi-auto and blow you away if you look at them wrong. Hyperbolic amphigory. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 11-Mar-2005, "KMAN" wrote: So you actually thought that I believed the guns are in a rack on the counter next to the gum and you just buy one? Before you give up on how trivial it is to buy a gun, check into the lack or regulations or rules on private sales in some states. Mike I know, that was my whole point...that is too easy. You'd still be wrong. While one does not have to file a form 4477 or have a background check in most states, it's still illegal to sell a gun to a disqualified person, even in a private sale. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right of religious students to pray in school That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school. Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are entitled to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are leading the prayers. Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with whatever the court has to say on an issue. It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however. But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion. It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil liberties. Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support things like religion and private property. You must learn to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging in or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as the Constitution requires them to tolerate such things. If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody would even know they were praying. "Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk all day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it. or defense of individual landowners property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a good fit. In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our Who is "our" here? Each and every citizen of the United States, of course. the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from gun nuts. Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the civil liberty to own a gun. It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties. Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you might well expect the ACLU to disagree. Hyperbolic amphigory. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink challenges: ============= So clue me in to this legacy that will live. I have gotten to know you a little, and I expect that you have been holding some cards close to your chest. Show me your hand, I call you! TnT =============== Tink, my interactions with fellow humans are vast. Let me give you insight into non-work related stuff. I coach 4 different teams: 1 soccer and 3 field hockey (2 girls & one womens). If, a decade or two from now, one of my players, perhaps coaching a team of her own, passes on something that I taught or models some behavior, that's awesome. I can't ask for more. frtzw906 You mention non-working, indicating that there is work related as well, can you high-light. I am trying to get a general total idea of what you as a representative Secular Humanist, finds as an acceptable expression of Secular Humanism. What you participate in that would be defining activities. You mention the coaching, which is good, but hardly defining of SH. There are many who coach and would probably make no such claims. Are you involved in any identifiable groups that allow you to illuminate others with your understandind directly, not indirectly? Can you voice a personal philosophy that you typically would share with someone if they are interested. Not KMAN's list which was instructive, though not helpful in determing personal involvement and commitment! It is easy to say I belive such and such, which is what so many supposed Christians do, but when pressed, really have no idea of what they really believe. They just make the claim because they have learned the religious language, and try to get you off their bank by answering what they think you want to hear. Basically I am saying, I am giving you opportunity to proselytize me with what you believe. Convince me of the wisdom of your way! TnT |
Tink asks:
============== Basically I am saying, I am giving you opportunity to proselytize me with what you believe. Convince me of the wisdom of your way! ============= What can I say, Tink, except that I found KMAN's list more than adequate. As to the other stuff, you may recall that you made some innane comment about whatever I do ending up on a scrap heap (I can't recall your exact words, but that pretty-much sums it up). And I explained to you that whatever I do likely will NOT end up on a scrap heap but, would, rather, live long past my physical demise. This legacy (for lack of a better word right now) constitutes my after-life. I'm content with that. That gves me a warm fuzzy feeling right now. By way of example, I was up at the field hockey clubhouse last night. In one of the meetings for novice coaches, I saw 6 girls/young women who I had coached earlier in their careers. They may well have their own motives for wanting to coach, but I also know them well enough to know that by modelling behavior, I influenced them (and I know for a fact they'll use many of the coaching drills and tactics I used). So, already a "legacy". Now, if these young ladies have a similar impact on their players, isn't that one hell of an "after-life" even before I'm gone. That, Tink, is what an after-life means to me -- making differences in peoples' lives that they'll not soon forget. frtzw906 |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article 1110519448.701b72c2e1f5e9e9ec659957df8742c3@terane ws, Nisarel at wrote on 3/11/05 12:37 AM: KMAN wrote: I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is ... what life is like in Texas and Florida. Heh. Well, I recently took a group to South Beach and I have to say that we felt quite safe and had a great time there. All of the front line people in the service industry and particularly the public transit workers were much more helpful and friendly than here. I actually nominated Miami-Dade for an award. And it definitely didn't have the feel of a gun culture...everyone seemed to be having too much fun to be worried about carrying a gun. BWHAHAHAHAAH! Well, you really stepped on your generative organ this time. Guess which state STARTED the liberalization of CCW? Guess which state has the LARGEST NUMBER of citizens carrying concealed handguns? Florida. Yes, I know Scotty. And I know about Jeb Bush. I'm Canadian. I probably know more about Florida than most Floridians. I'm just being honest about our experience in South Beach. The people were kind, and I did not sense any gun culture there. I'm also aware that South Beach is a pretty unique area. Again, merely because you did not "sense" something does not mean that guns were all around you. They were. You can bet on it. The fact that people don't openly display them is merely proof that your "gun culture" appellation is spurious. Gun culture is not about the existence or non-existence of guns. Obviously there tends to be a correlation, but the link is not causal. That's why they call it a CONCEALED weapon. You were without a doubt in the presence of several people who were armed, and the REASON you felt safe is BECAUSE of Florida's CCW program, which radically reduced street crime, particularly in Miami and its environs. Oh, I could see various crimes taking place right in front of my eyes. But it was the type of community where people walk with their head up and say hello, and don't act like they'll whip out a semi-auto and blow you away if you look at them wrong. Hyperbolic amphigory. Perhaps only because you have been a gun nut for so long that you forget what it feels like to live without fear. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 11-Mar-2005, "KMAN" wrote: So you actually thought that I believed the guns are in a rack on the counter next to the gum and you just buy one? Before you give up on how trivial it is to buy a gun, check into the lack or regulations or rules on private sales in some states. Mike I know, that was my whole point...that is too easy. You'd still be wrong. While one does not have to file a form 4477 or have a background check in most states, it's still illegal to sell a gun to a disqualified person, even in a private sale. It's too easy to own a gun. I'd recommend about a 50 year waiting period, and then, only if you were certifiably non-nutty. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right of religious students to pray in school That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school. Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are entitled to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are leading the prayers. Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with whatever the court has to say on an issue. It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however. No it doesn't. But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion. It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil liberties. Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support things like religion and private property. Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true. How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some examples to see where you are coming from on that one. You must learn to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging in or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as the Constitution requires them to tolerate such things. If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody would even know they were praying. "Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk all day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it. And that's the place for it. Not in a school where other children are required to be. There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about the ACLU :-) or defense of individual landowners property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a good fit. In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our Who is "our" here? Each and every citizen of the United States, of course. Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty. the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from gun nuts. Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the civil liberty to own a gun. It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties. Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear arms. Nope, that too. Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you might well expect the ACLU to disagree. Hyperbolic amphigory. Try to see how it is more than that. It's a bit like the situation with the gum. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Tink asks: ============== Basically I am saying, I am giving you opportunity to proselytize me with what you believe. Convince me of the wisdom of your way! ============= What can I say, Tink, except that I found KMAN's list more than adequate. As to the other stuff, you may recall that you made some innane comment about whatever I do ending up on a scrap heap (I can't recall your exact words, but that pretty-much sums it up). And I explained to you that whatever I do likely will NOT end up on a scrap heap but, would, rather, live long past my physical demise. This legacy (for lack of a better word right now) constitutes my after-life. I'm content with that. That gves me a warm fuzzy feeling right now. By way of example, I was up at the field hockey clubhouse last night. In one of the meetings for novice coaches, I saw 6 girls/young women who I had coached earlier in their careers. They may well have their own motives for wanting to coach, but I also know them well enough to know that by modelling behavior, I influenced them (and I know for a fact they'll use many of the coaching drills and tactics I used). So, already a "legacy". Now, if these young ladies have a similar impact on their players, isn't that one hell of an "after-life" even before I'm gone. That, Tink, is what an after-life means to me -- making differences in peoples' lives that they'll not soon forget. frtzw906 Right on brother! |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink asks: ============== Basically I am saying, I am giving you opportunity to proselytize me with what you believe. Convince me of the wisdom of your way! ============= What can I say, Tink, except that I found KMAN's list more than adequate. As to the other stuff, you may recall that you made some innane comment about whatever I do ending up on a scrap heap (I can't recall your exact words, but that pretty-much sums it up). And I explained to you that whatever I do likely will NOT end up on a scrap heap but, would, rather, live long past my physical demise. This legacy (for lack of a better word right now) constitutes my after-life. I'm content with that. That gves me a warm fuzzy feeling right now. By way of example, I was up at the field hockey clubhouse last night. In one of the meetings for novice coaches, I saw 6 girls/young women who I had coached earlier in their careers. They may well have their own motives for wanting to coach, but I also know them well enough to know that by modelling behavior, I influenced them (and I know for a fact they'll use many of the coaching drills and tactics I used). So, already a "legacy". Now, if these young ladies have a similar impact on their players, isn't that one hell of an "after-life" even before I'm gone. That, Tink, is what an after-life means to me -- making differences in peoples' lives that they'll not soon forget. frtzw906 frtzw, I want you to know that I expect that you are a very nice man, that we could have a great time paddling or playing chess together. We could probably enjoy a good conversation over some beer and pretzels. If my stomping through your memorial gardens seemed unceremonius, and agregious, and upset you, I apologize. However it was not pointless. I desired to upset you. If my little rant could upset you, then you must now add that to your memorial garden. Maybe that you have been attacked by a rabid Christian should read well on your memorial headstone, or maybe that you let him get under your skin for being rude! No, that would not read as well! That we have had an interesting conversation should also be noted in your memorial, that you are a nice guy, that you have dedicated your life to educating young people in sportsmanship, drills and tactics. That someone 20, 30, or 40 years from now will speak highly of you, will be your lasting legacy. I look forward to continuing our converstion, for I am learning alot of new and wonderful things, That may be on your legacy stone as well! I did come across some interesting web articles that I wanted to share with you about the religious right, and conservative politics. I think you will find them interesting. http://tinyurl.com/5s3h6 http://tinyurl.com/62d7v It seems that all is not as it appears in Shangri-la! TnT |
On 11-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
This biometric measurement suggests that they are not the same organism. There you go, assuming that all scientists are stupid. You've done it before, you'll do it again. The fact is that you think you're an expert on morphology because you read a dictionary definition that you obviously don't understand. Those of us that are trained in science and engineering _know_ that morphological characteristics, such as form and structure, can be independent of size. I've long ago lost count of how many analyses of structures I've done that are independent of dimension (I'm a structural engineer). My master's thesis topic was on risk (mentioned before) and featured an analysis of the National Building Code for risk parameters. The structures investigated were all non-dimensional. All dimensions are normalized out of the model. Aero-and hydrodynamics work is almost always non-dimensional. Airfoils are very well defined in _form_ (search on NACA airfoils for examples) but are not specified as having dimensions. The coefficients (lift, drag, Reynold's number, Mach number etc) are all dimensionless. Engineers in this area are able to compare and contrast different airfoil designs without resorting to dimensional information, working entirely with the _form_ and non-dimensional coefficients. In the realm of paleoanthropology, the most recent news has been about Homo Florensiensis. Skeletal remains found in Indonesia have been causing quite a stir. Teuku Jakob, an Indonesian paleontologist has claimed that the skull is simply that of a microcephalic H. sapiens. However, Dean Falk of Florida State U, has analysed the brain cast of H. florensiensis and compared it to brain casts of pygmies, microcephalic H. sapiens and to H. erectus. This was published in "Science" in the past couple of weeks and she was interviewed on Discovery Channel. The brain casts show the characteristics typical of the various species and types. She was able to show that the H. florensiensis was not a microcephalic and that the its lobes were closest to H. erectus. These brain casts were _not_the_same_size_. They don't have to be the same size to be morphologically similar. Form and structure are not dependent on dimension as you naively assume. You have made the ridiculous claim that biometry is a subset of morphology - PROVE IT. They are hominids - human ancestors, ***early humans*** not human beings. It says so in the web page. Interesting that you excised the QUOTE from the Smithsonian website which clearly refers to them as "***earlier humans***." What excising? You still can't read - a kindergarden kop pretending to be an editor. "The phylogenetic tree below shows one reconstruction of the relationships among early human species, as we best know them today." Any ambiguity about the use of the term "human" aside - you are still wrong. Every one of the species that you listed as an early human (including all australopithicines, the paranthropus and homo species) for which adequate skeletal remains have been found share one significant characteristic - THEY ALL WALKED ERECT. You're still wrong, dickhead. Give it up, you're beaten. Speak for yourself, dickhead. Mike |
On 11-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: it's still illegal to sell a gun to a disqualified person, even in a private sale. A technicality of no consequence to those that firmly believe that the constitution protects their right to have guns. Mike |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right of religious students to pray in school That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school. Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are entitled to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are leading the prayers. Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with whatever the court has to say on an issue. It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however. No it doesn't. If they don't comport with the Constitution, they aren't protecting "civil liberties." But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion. It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil liberties. Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support things like religion and private property. Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true. How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some examples to see where you are coming from on that one. I didn't say they threatened private property, though I suspect they do by interfering with land transfers (think Wal-Mart) and perhaps by supporting restrictions on the use and enjoyment of private land found in land use codes, I said that they did not SUPPORT private property rights. There's not a chance in hell that the ACLU would, for example, take up my case against the State of Colorado for the unlawful appropriation of a right of way across my land by the legislature. And yet the issue of unlawful eminent domain takings is certainly involved with "civil rights," since the right to own private property and be compensated when the state appropriates it, is a fundamental civil right. You must learn to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging in or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as the Constitution requires them to tolerate such things. If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody would even know they were praying. "Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk all day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it. And that's the place for it. Well, the point is that neither you nor the government gets to decide that. Not in a school where other children are required to be. That they are required to be there does not mean that they have a right to be protected from displays of religious beliefs by other students who choose to freely exercise their First Amendment rights. There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about the ACLU :-) Hardly. or defense of individual landowners property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a good fit. In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our Who is "our" here? Each and every citizen of the United States, of course. Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty. If they don't, they are socialist asses. the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from gun nuts. Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the civil liberty to own a gun. It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties. Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear arms. Nope, that too. But they absolutely refuse to defend the right to keep and bear arms, which is a civil liberty. As I said, they are a biased, hard-left group with a socialist agenda. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 11-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: This biometric measurement suggests that they are not the same organism. There you go, assuming that all scientists are stupid. Not them, just you. You've done it before, you'll do it again. The fact is that you think you're an expert on morphology because you read a dictionary definition that you obviously don't understand. Those of us that are trained in science and engineering _know_ that morphological characteristics, such as form and structure, can be independent of size. I've long ago lost count of how many analyses of structures I've done that are independent of dimension (I'm a structural engineer). My master's thesis topic was on risk (mentioned before) and featured an analysis of the National Building Code for risk parameters. The structures investigated were all non-dimensional. All dimensions are normalized out of the model. Aero-and hydrodynamics work is almost always non-dimensional. Airfoils are very well defined in _form_ (search on NACA airfoils for examples) but are not specified as having dimensions. The coefficients (lift, drag, Reynold's number, Mach number etc) are all dimensionless. Engineers in this area are able to compare and contrast different airfoil designs without resorting to dimensional information, working entirely with the _form_ and non-dimensional coefficients. In the realm of paleoanthropology, the most recent news has been about Homo Florensiensis. Skeletal remains found in Indonesia have been causing quite a stir. Teuku Jakob, an Indonesian paleontologist has claimed that the skull is simply that of a microcephalic H. sapiens. However, Dean Falk of Florida State U, has analysed the brain cast of H. florensiensis and compared it to brain casts of pygmies, microcephalic H. sapiens and to H. erectus. This was published in "Science" in the past couple of weeks and she was interviewed on Discovery Channel. The brain casts show the characteristics typical of the various species and types. She was able to show that the H. florensiensis was not a microcephalic and that the its lobes were closest to H. erectus. These brain casts were _not_the_same_size_. They don't have to be the same size to be morphologically similar. Form and structure are not dependent on dimension as you naively assume. But that's a claim I've never made. I said that size is a component of form and structure, which is clearly the case. There is no form and structure in organisms without size, except in the abstract. I did not say that form and structure were dependent on size. Thus, "morphology," which describes the form and structure of an organism includes as a part of the description of the morphology an analysis of size. I did not suggest that size was determinative. You affirm my statement with your discussion of H. florensiensis. The root of this debate was the question of intelligent design versus evolution and my quest for an explanation of why sharks have not changed from sharks to something else in 400 million years while humans have advanced remarkably in less than 2 million years. You said: We know that DNA mutations occur in humans as well, and at a fairly quick rate. In spite of that, there have been no morphological changes in skeletal remains during the entire history of Homo Sapiens. I said: I disagree. If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased substantially in recorded history. And how do you link, for example, Homo Neandrathalsis to Homo Sapiens? Where are the intervening morphological changes that show that one became the other? Sorry, but that record simply does not exist. There is not just one "missing link," there are BILLIONS of missing links. If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes that result in the evolution of a species, one would expect to find a panoply of slightly different specimens in different geological strata that would show the evolution. Instead, what we see are a very, very few examples of fossil remains that are morphologically distinct from one another, with no evidence of the co-existence of different "Darwinian dead-end" variants. Some paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but the overlap is speculative at this point. You said there have been "no morphological changes in skeletal remains during the entire history of Homo Sapiens." I suggested that, if nothing else, the average height has increased in recorded history. One of the "other things" is, for example, the larger brain case, more complex brain, and "lighter skeletal structure" than earlier forms. All of these are morphological differences, not merely size differences, as your H. florensiensis quote demonstrates. You tried to limit the discussion specifically to H sap., but the issue is larger than that. I then broadened the scope by including other forms of humans to show that there have indeed been morphological changes. Indeed, it's the morphological changes in ancestral humans that cause scientists to give them different names. You have made the ridiculous claim that biometry is a subset of morphology - PROVE IT. Simple logic proves it: Premise: Organisms cannot exist without form and structure. Premise: Organisms cannot exist without size. Conclusion: Form, structure and size are required for an organism to exist. Premise: Form and structure may be described without reference to size. Premise: Size may not be described without reference to form and structure. Conclusion: Size is a component of form and structure. Premise: Size is a component of form and structure. Premise: Morphology describes the form and structure of an organism. Premise: Biometry describes the organism's size. Conclusion: Biometry is a component of morphology. "The phylogenetic tree below shows one reconstruction of the relationships among early human species, as we best know them today." Any ambiguity about the use of the term "human" aside - you are still wrong. Every one of the species that you listed as an early human (including all australopithicines, the paranthropus and homo species) for which adequate skeletal remains have been found share one significant characteristic - THEY ALL WALKED ERECT. You're still wrong, dickhead. Not quite, you merely misunderstand the point of the debate. At some stage in evolution, the precursors to early humans did not walk erect, or so evolutionary theory would have it. If evolution is true, then we evolved from pond-scum and passed through a nearly infinite number of intermediate forms that resulted in what we are today. Where are all those intermediate forms, and why haven't sharks also gone through intermediate morphological changes en route to some greater destiny? Or, somewhere in pre-history, something sudden and episodic happened that resulted in a change to upright gait, which is one of the markers that scientists use to differentiate between lower primate forms and humans. Is the change to upright gait a gradual shift that would suggest morphological change through adaptation or is it a sudden and inexplicable change from one morphology to another with no intervening intermediary forms? If the former, where are the intervening forms? If the latter, what caused the sudden morphological changes? Gamma rays? God? Speak for yourself, dickhead. I always do, Netwit. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
On 12-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Form and structure are not dependent on dimension as you naively assume. But that's a claim I've never made. On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: I am using the term morphology correctly. It is about shape and form, not size. Not according to the only authoritative definition of the word posted so far. On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: I don't see the word "size" or "dimension" anywhere in here. That's because you're an idiot, ****-brick. [...] morphology inherently includes size as a component of form and structure. You are claiming that morphology is based on dimension even though the definition that you provide does not even contain any reference to dimension. You have claimed that within morphology, you can't have form or structure without dimension. On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Thus biometry is an aspect of morphology. I have given many examples of scientists and engineers using morphological characteristics without _any_ reference to dimension. Morphology is _independent_ of dimension. Form and structure are independent of size. It is only when one moves from the study of a class of forms to the study of an individual instance of an entity that one invokes size and hence biometry. The problem is that you can't distinguish between classes of objects and instances of objects. Morphology is about classification and biometry is about measuring an instance of an object independent of its class. Two different activities with two different objectives. They are not the same thing and are not done with the same objective. One is not a subset of the other. It is you that does not understand the slightest thing about morphology and biometry, nor about science. You insist in claiming expertise because you misunderstand a dictionary entry. Why don't you actually _study_ something about the topic instead of continuing to post bull****. You affirm my statement with your discussion of H. florensiensis. And yet at every point up to now you've tried to claim that size is important. You said there have been "no morphological changes in skeletal remains during the entire history of Homo Sapiens." I suggested that, if nothing else, the average height has increased in recorded history. One of the "other things" is, for example, the larger brain case, more complex brain, and "lighter skeletal structure" than earlier forms. All of these are morphological differences, not merely size differences, as your H. florensiensis quote demonstrates. You tried to limit the discussion specifically to H sap., but the issue is larger than that. Yes - you tried to change the topic. Every time you get stuck, you try to change the topic instead of address the facts presented. There are morphological differences because they are in different classes. Each is a separate species, dickhead. Within a single species, changes in structure are extremely slow to occur - my point and one you don't want to hear. Simple logic proves it: You prove nothing. See above. If you want to prove this, try finding a reference that agrees with your ridiculous claims. Not quite, you merely misunderstand the point of the debate. No, I'm addressing the fact that _you_ do not bother with facts and that _you_ will post anything that comes to your mind even if it nothing but bull****. Stop changing the topic. You are nothing but a bull****ter. Mike |
|
In article ,
"Michael Daly" wrote: On 11-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: it's still illegal to sell a gun to a disqualified person, even in a private sale. A technicality of no consequence to those that firmly believe that the constitution protects their right to have guns. You misspelled "criminals". Which do not obey the laws in question. |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 12-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Form and structure are not dependent on dimension as you naively assume. But that's a claim I've never made. On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: I am using the term morphology correctly. It is about shape and form, not size. Not according to the only authoritative definition of the word posted so far. On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: I don't see the word "size" or "dimension" anywhere in here. That's because you're an idiot, ****-brick. [...] morphology inherently includes size as a component of form and structure. You are claiming that morphology is based on dimension Wrongo. I state as a matter of fact that dimension is a component of morphology. even though the definition that you provide does not even contain any reference to dimension. You have claimed that within morphology, you can't have form or structure without dimension. On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Thus biometry is an aspect of morphology. I have given many examples of scientists and engineers using morphological characteristics without _any_ reference to dimension. Morphology is _independent_ of dimension. Form and structure are independent of size. Not when it comes to analyzing organisms. One can analyze an abstract, size-less, lifeless structure like a building or an airplane wing (though Reynolds numbers do affect wing performance) but when talking about organisms, which is what we're talking about, size is a component of morphology. It is only when one moves from the study of a class of forms to the study of an individual instance of an entity that one invokes size and hence biometry. The problem is that you can't distinguish between classes of objects and instances of objects. Morphology is about classification and biometry is about measuring an instance of an object independent of its class. Two different activities with two different objectives. They are not the same thing and are not done with the same objective. One is not a subset of the other. Evidently, the Smithsonian disagrees with you. It is you that does not understand the slightest thing about morphology and biometry, nor about science. You insist in claiming expertise because you misunderstand a dictionary entry. Why don't you actually _study_ something about the topic instead of continuing to post bull****. But....watching you rant, rave and foam at the mouth is so much FUN! You affirm my statement with your discussion of H. florensiensis. And yet at every point up to now you've tried to claim that size is important. No, merely that size is a component of the morphology of an organism. No form and structure without size in living organisms. You said there have been "no morphological changes in skeletal remains during the entire history of Homo Sapiens." I suggested that, if nothing else, the average height has increased in recorded history. One of the "other things" is, for example, the larger brain case, more complex brain, and "lighter skeletal structure" than earlier forms. All of these are morphological differences, not merely size differences, as your H. florensiensis quote demonstrates. You tried to limit the discussion specifically to H sap., but the issue is larger than that. Yes - you tried to change the topic. Every time you get stuck, you try to change the topic instead of address the facts presented. Nah. Just returning to the fundamental question involved, which you are desperate to avoid and are evading through pettifoggery. There are morphological differences because they are in different classes. Each is a separate species, dickhead. Within a single species, changes in structure are extremely slow to occur - my point and one you don't want to hear. Because you want to limit the discussion to a single species, while I'm discussing the broader question of how A. ramidus became H. sap., or even how H. ergaster became H. sap. If evolution is the true method of species advancement, then there needs to be an explanation for the morphological changes that take place between H. ergaster and H. sap. And there must also be an explanation of why the shark hasn't changed nearly as much (if at all) in 400 million years while humans changed from H.ergaster (and earlier non-human forms) to H. sap in less than two million years. One hypothesis is that as a result of intelligent design, sharks were meant to remain sharks, while humans were meant to become H. sap. At the moment, this hypothesis is as valid as that of evolution because you cannot explain the disparate amounts of evolution evidenced in the two species. Sharks have not even become "really smart sharks with hands," much less evolved into something entirely different, while human beings are thought to have evolved into upright-gaited, highly intelligent organisms from some theoretical primitive primate ancestor. Until you can explain this disparity, one hypothesis (or theory, if you will) is any more the "Truth" than the other. Simple logic proves it: You prove nothing. See above. If you want to prove this, try finding a reference that agrees with your ridiculous claims. Interesting that someone supposedly as scientifically advanced as you can't deconstruct a logical syllogism any more authoritatively than by saying "Ain't so." Not quite, you merely misunderstand the point of the debate. No, I'm addressing the fact that _you_ do not bother with facts and that _you_ will post anything that comes to your mind even if it nothing but bull****. Stop changing the topic. You are nothing but a bull****ter. Which makes you the bull****ee, I guess. Had your fill yet? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
On 14-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Not when it comes to analyzing organisms. One can analyze an abstract, size-less, lifeless structure like a building or an airplane wing (though Reynolds numbers do affect wing performance) but when talking about organisms, which is what we're talking about, size is a component of morphology. Exactly why does one use morphology? To analyse a single organism? No, dickhead, that won't tell you anything. Morphological characteristics are used to compare, contrast and categorize organisms. Hence you are working with a class of organisms, not a single entity. One only looks at the morphological characteristics of a single entity when one wants to determine which category it belongs to - as in the analysis of H. florensiensis. If size was a critical component, then you have a serious problem. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, few of whom are the same height. If every height is a unique characteristic, then there are millions of species of humans. In fact, there is only one species and height is not a parameter in defining it. However, other morphological characteristics are important - the shapes of bones differentiates H sapiens from, say, gorillas or orangutans. You still don't understand the concept and you still think you're an expert because you misunderstand a single dictionary definition of morphology. Evidently, the Smithsonian disagrees with you. Proof? No form and structure without size in living organisms. And yet the size of the brain casts in analyzing H. florensiensis as not a factor. Main Entry: 1form Pronunciation: 'form Function: noun Etymology: Middle English forme, from Old French, from Latin forma form, beauty 1 a : the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material. Nothing in there about size. Main Entry: 1struc·ture Pronunciation: 'str&k-ch&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Latin structura, from structus, past participle of struere to heap up, build Something arranged in a definite pattern of organization a rigid totalitarian structure -- J. L. Hess leaves and other plant structures a : The arrangement of particles or parts in a substance or body soil structure molecular structure b : Organization of parts as dominated by the general character of the whole economic structure personality structure The aggregate of elements of an entity in their relationships to each other Nothing in there about size. You're fantasizing as usual. Nah. Just returning to the fundamental question involved, No avoiding the current discussion - you post bull**** and can't be bothered to demonstrate that there are any real facts involved. Because you want to limit the discussion to a single species You keep insisting that I am limiting or restricting the discussion. More of your bull****. I am simply stating a fact. You can't deal with facts. Yo uprefer to be a vaque as possible and avoid being pinned down on anything. That makes it easier for you to bull****. Interesting that someone supposedly as scientifically advanced as you can't deconstruct a logical syllogism any more authoritatively than by saying "Ain't so." Interesting that someone like you who claims to be correct can't ever produce any evidence to back yourself up. So we return to the start of this part of the thread: Your "theory of evolution" - bull****. Your claims about Newton and Galileo - bull****. Your claims about flat earth beliefs - bull****. Your claims about humans (modern or early) not walking upright - bull****. Your claims about morphology - bull****. There's nothing that you post of any value - you have proven that you can't tell the truth or provide any references to back your ridiculous claims. Mike |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 14-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Not when it comes to analyzing organisms. One can analyze an abstract, size-less, lifeless structure like a building or an airplane wing (though Reynolds numbers do affect wing performance) but when talking about organisms, which is what we're talking about, size is a component of morphology. Exactly why does one use morphology? To analyse a single organism? No, dickhead, that won't tell you anything. Morphological characteristics are used to compare, contrast and categorize organisms. Hence you are working with a class of organisms, not a single entity. One only looks at the morphological characteristics of a single entity when one wants to determine which category it belongs to - as in the analysis of H. florensiensis. Indeed. So what? Size is still a component of morphology. If size was a critical component, Who said "critical component?" Not me. then you have a serious problem. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, few of whom are the same height. If every height is a unique characteristic, then there are millions of species of humans. In fact, there is only one species and height is not a parameter in defining it. However, other morphological characteristics are important - the shapes of bones differentiates H sapiens from, say, gorillas or orangutans. I never suggested that other morphological characteristics are unimportant, I merely said that size is a component of morphology. You still don't understand the concept and you still think you're an expert because you misunderstand a single dictionary definition of morphology. Oh, I understand it just fine. You just disagree, but are unable to even refute a simple logical syllogism. No form and structure without size in living organisms. And yet the size of the brain casts in analyzing H. florensiensis as not a factor. Don't be silly, of course the size of the brain case is a factor. Larger brain cases mean larger brains, larger brains are a factor in species morphology. The determination of "larger" involves biometry, which means "size," which proves that size is a component of morphology. There's nothing that you post of any value - you have proven that you can't tell the truth or provide any references to back your ridiculous claims. And yet you keep on lapping it up. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
On 15-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Oh, I understand it just fine. You just disagree, but are unable to even refute a simple logical syllogism. You _still_ can't offer any reference to back up your comments. And yet you keep on lapping it up. You're getting close to admitting you're lying. why not come clean and maybe you can start working on telling the truth for a change? Mike |
Michael Daly wrote: On 15-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Oh, I understand it just fine. You just disagree, but are unable to even refute a simple logical syllogism. You _still_ can't offer any reference to back up your comments. And yet you keep on lapping it up. You're getting close to admitting you're lying. why not come clean and maybe you can start working on telling the truth for a change? Mike Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various contentions are. Thanks, TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various contentions are. Thanks, TnT You're an idiot. No, yor stupid. Well, he says you're a moron. What does he know....he's a fool. Well, he ain't as dum as you. So's yer mother. Bite me. Eat me. Sez you. You don't know what I said. You don't know what you said. Answer my question. What question? What are you talking about. You're and idiot Blah...... Blah...... Wolfgang no charge for this one. |
Wolfgang wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various contentions are. Thanks, TnT You're an idiot. No, yor stupid. Well, he says you're a moron. What does he know....he's a fool. Well, he ain't as dum as you. So's yer mother. Bite me. Eat me. Sez you. You don't know what I said. You don't know what you said. Answer my question. What question? What are you talking about. You're and idiot Blah...... Blah...... Wolfgang no charge for this one. Wolfgang, that's basically this whole thread in one post... Thanks! ;-) -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various contentions are. Thanks, TnT You're an idiot. No, yor stupid. Well, he says you're a moron. What does he know....he's a fool. Well, he ain't as dum as you. So's yer mother. Bite me. Eat me. Sez you. You don't know what I said. You don't know what you said. Answer my question. What question? What are you talking about. You're and idiot Blah...... Blah...... Wolfgang no charge for this one. Thanks -I had a bad day and that was a good laugh. Ken |
"Wilko" wrote in message ... Wolfgang wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various contentions are. Thanks, TnT You're an idiot. No, yor stupid. Well, he says you're a moron. What does he know....he's a fool. Well, he ain't as dum as you. So's yer mother. Bite me. Eat me. Sez you. You don't know what I said. You don't know what you said. Answer my question. What question? What are you talking about. You're and idiot Blah...... Blah...... Wolfgang no charge for this one. Wolfgang, that's basically this whole thread in one post... Thanks! ;-) This and most others. It's o.k. Nobody can make us read it. Wolfgang but where else can you watch serial self-immolation for free? :) |
"No Spam" wrote in message news:4%3_d.7236$FB6.2452@trndny09... Thanks -I had a bad day and that was a good laugh. You should read more Usenet. :) Wolfgang |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com