Who'll win? the COMPUTER or the GOOBER ???
Doug Bashford
Who will win? the COMPUTER or the GOOBER ???
We don't need a goober for president.
Besides, he would destroy our environment.
I'll go with the computer, myself.
- Limbaugh thinks leaving the cap on your coffee cup will
- dilute it. For that reason he gave Kit Carson hell
- one day. His theory was, the lid sweats and dilutes
- the coffee. laughingggg... Ya, the man is a real
- scientific genius, alright. He should have NO problem
- being able to figure out complex biophysical systems,
- right? He can't even figure out the environment
- in his coffee cup. With "creationism" in a cup, is
- it any wonder he doesn't comprehend "finite Earth?"
David Gossman
"Doug Bashford" <see.m...@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
news:3a1c53ef....@news.psnw.com...
Let's look at the science of this for a moment. Compared with leaving the
cap off the coffee he is of course right. Leaving the cap on results in
moisture that would have escaped falling back into the cup diluting the
coffee relative to the state it would be in had the cap been left off. (Note
the "would be in", not "had been in".) Further the dilution would presumably
be slightly more pronounced in the top layer of the coffee that one would
sip from and taste. Not being a coffee drinker I don't know if one could
taste a difference, but rather clearly this repeated critique actually
demonstrates that the poster may be attempting to compare the coffee on a
different temporal basis than the original intent of the statement. Or maybe
the poster simply has less understanding of science than Limbaugh...
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
Phil Hays
> Or maybe
> the poster simply has less understanding of science than Limbaugh...
Yea, right.
Or did I miss understand your intent. Were you trying for humor? If so, my
opinion is not funny.
--
Phil Hays
David Gossman
"Phil Hays" <spampos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:3A1D3A8A...@sprynet.com...
Please read in context - I thought the irony was clear.
Bloody Viking
Doug Bashford (see.m...@theBeach.edu) wrote:
: We don't need a goober for president.
: Besides, he would destroy our environment.
: I'll go with the computer, myself.
No matter which fuckwit wins, they will be filibustered to death.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
Doug Bashford
on Thu, 23 Nov "David Gossman" wrote:
about: Re: Who'll win? the COMPUTER or the GOOBER ???
>
>
>
>"Doug Bashford" :
>cap off the coffee he is of course right. Leaving the cap on results in
>moisture that would have escaped falling back into the cup diluting the
>coffee relative to the state it would be in had the cap been left off. (Note
>the "would be in", not "had been in".) Further the dilution would presumably
>be slightly more pronounced in the top layer of the coffee that one would
>sip from and taste. Not being a coffee drinker I don't know if one could
>taste a difference, but rather clearly this repeated critique actually
>demonstrates that the poster may be attempting to compare the coffee on a
>the poster simply has less understanding of science than Limbaugh...
<grin>
With "science" like that, I think you'll
be quite happy with the GOOBER!
With "science" like that, no wonder the ozone hole
debate lasted so long.
David Gossman
"Doug Bashford" <see.m...@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
news:3a202169....@news.psnw.com...
>
> on Thu, 23 Nov "David Gossman" wrote:
> about: Re: Who'll win? the COMPUTER or the GOOBER ???
> >
> >
> >
> >"Doug Bashford" :
> >Let's look at the science of this for a moment. Compared with leaving the
> >cap off the coffee he is of course right. Leaving the cap on results in
> >moisture that would have escaped falling back into the cup diluting the
> >coffee relative to the state it would be in had the cap been left off.
(Note
> >the "would be in", not "had been in".) Further the dilution would
presumably
> >be slightly more pronounced in the top layer of the coffee that one would
> >sip from and taste. Not being a coffee drinker I don't know if one could
> >taste a difference, but rather clearly this repeated critique actually
> >demonstrates that the poster may be attempting to compare the coffee on a
> >different temporal basis than the original intent of the statement. Or
maybe
> >the poster simply has less understanding of science than Limbaugh...
>
> <grin>
>
> With "science" like that, I think you'll
> be quite happy with the GOOBER!
>
> With "science" like that, no wonder the ozone hole
> debate lasted so long.
>
Translation, you are also having difficulty understanding the temporal
aspects of the problem and you can't even be specific except to suggest that
I do not know science. Care to compare credentials and training?
Leonard Evens
>
> >
> Translation, you are also having difficulty understanding the temporal
> aspects of the problem and you can't even be specific except to suggest that
> I do not know science. Care to compare credentials and training?
>
It seems to me this whole argument is a bit silly, but why not
throw my oar in. Leaving the cap on the coffee cup does not dilute
the coffee, but it tends to maintain whatever dilution it started
out in. Removing the cap leads to some additional evaporation of
water and presumably some concentration of dissolved solids, although
I doubt if this is significant. But coffee also includes some
dissolved liquids which might also evaporate. And some of these
might evaporate faster. So whether you considered the coffee
more or less dilute would depend on which elements of the coffee
were considered most important. I suppose this would all come
down to a difficult question of exactly what the composition of
coffee is and what happens in a variety of containers under different
circumstances with caps and without caps.
Still it seems to me that the major effect of leaving the cap on
is to keep the coffee warmer longer, and any effect on dilution
would be relatively minor compared to that. If you can present
a precise scientific analysis proving otherwise, I wait to be
convinced.
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> |David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
> |President | http://gcisolutions.com |
> | The Business of Problem Solving |
> --------------------------------------------
> "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
> it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
vau...@my-deja.com
postings in chronological order, starting with old ones. In order to
read the more recent ones, I have to flip thru hundreds of pages, and
usually it gets stuck and I cannot read any of the last postings.
Previously the postings appeared starting with the most recent ones.
How do I correct this? I wrote to The Deja.com Help Desk 10 days ago
and didn't receive any response. Can anyone help? Since I will not be
able to read any answers,becuse of the problem I am describing, can
someone e-mail me how to solve the problem?
Sorry I had to post this in this thread, but I even lost my "post
message" function
Thanks
vau...@optonline.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Doug Bashford
> >> - Limbaugh thinks leaving the cap on your coffee cup will
> >> - dilute it. For that reason he gave Kit Carson hell
> >> - one day. His theory was, the lid sweats and dilutes
> >> - the coffee. laughingggg... Ya, the man is a real
> >> - scientific genius, alright. He should have NO problem
> >> - being able to figure out complex biophysical systems,
> >> - right? He can't even figure out the environment
> >> - in his coffee cup. With "creationism" in a cup, is
> >> - it any wonder he doesn't comprehend "finite Earth?"
on Sun, 26 Nov Leonard Evens wrote:
>David Gossman wrote:
>> Translation, you are also having difficulty understanding the temporal
>> aspects of the problem and you can't even be specific except to suggest that
>> I do not know science.
Suggest!?? Let me be more specific Libertarian Gossman:
you do not know science from from your ass. You are
kinda dull too. I'll not waste my time on your infantile
rebuttal again...you may look it up at deja.com.
>Care to compare credentials and training?
Credentials and training!?
Why? We have your words don't we? Idiot.
Let's try understanding and knowledge, this is
Usenet, not a school boy's resume.
>It seems to me this whole argument is a bit silly, but why not
>throw my oar in.
Leonard, you have more patience than I do. He's
used all mine up. Good luck.
>Leaving the cap on the coffee cup does not dilute
>the coffee, but it tends to maintain whatever dilution it started
>out in.
Bingo! Keep in mind that the Limbaughtomy was furious
at Kit Carson for *diluting* his coffee with lid sweat!
That has a clear and specific meaning.
For context, Limbaugh freely admits he's a scientific
imbecile. To dilute is to weaken a substance by the
*addition* of water or the like. He named the substance,
he named the water; "sweat". Yes, "dilution" is
precisely what the professional wordsmith meant!
Creationism in a cup.
Oh sure, we could go chasing angles on a pin, and say
anything insignificant to taste is non-sequitur. Or note
that the margin of error in scooping out the grounds
in preparation is far less. For myself, to make weaker coffee, I
add 20% less grounds if I'm going to be sure to taste the difference.
But this detracts from the whole point: Limbaugh was
*furious* at Kit Carson for diluting his coffee with lid sweat!
Not about admixture nor volatile oils, turpines, distillation
fractions, vapor impurities, etc.
>Removing the cap leads to some additional evaporation of
>water and presumably some concentration of dissolved solids, although
>I doubt if this is significant.
Agree. And I'd bet my paycheck that evaporation of
water is the major factor, it is insignificant, and
make a smaller bet you would not take that bet. Below,
you you seem to be splitting hairs.
> But coffee also includes some
>dissolved liquids which might also evaporate. And some of these
>might evaporate faster. So whether you considered the coffee
>more or less dilute would depend on which elements of the coffee
>were considered most important. I suppose this would all come
>down to a difficult question of exactly what the composition of
>coffee is and what happens in a variety of containers under different
>circumstances with caps and without caps.
>
>Still it seems to me that the major effect of leaving the cap on
>is to keep the coffee warmer longer, and any effect on dilution
>would be relatively minor compared to that.
By taste, any dilution (by returning cooled water
to the hotter liquid) *IS* non-existent. But again, this
diverts from the fact that Limbaugh thought lid sweat was
being created. Clue: lids don't sweat Rush, it only looks like it!
There is no creationism in a cup.
> If you can present a precise scientific analysis proving
>otherwise, I wait to be convinced.
Don't hold your breath. This guy seemingly believes
in Limbaughtomyville! ...
>> --------------------------------------------
>> |David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
>> |President | http://gcisolutions.com |
>> | The Business of Problem Solving |
>> --------------------------------------------
>> "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
>> it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
...and sci-fi technology too, I'll bet. No science, all
sci-fi optimism. Typical anti-environmentalist.
Is that the same libertarian Lazarus Long who boned his
identical sisters and his mother by trickery, and boned many
of his many grandchildren in Time Enough for Love?
Typical Libertarian..... How old were his sisters again
in that orgy? About eleven or twelve? And he married
his adopted daughter? Do we see a pattern here?
...No? ...Then see the earlier thread:
LIBERTARIAN platform on child prostitution..
Oh!!!... What a coincidence!
I guess you guys call that liberty?
I call it all the freedom you can buy,
and not one drop more.
David Gossman
Doug Bashford <see.m...@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
>
> > >> - Limbaugh thinks leaving the cap on your coffee cup will
> > >> - dilute it. For that reason he gave Kit Carson hell
> > >> - one day. His theory was, the lid sweats and dilutes
> > >> - the coffee. laughingggg... Ya, the man is a real
> > >> - scientific genius, alright. He should have NO problem
> > >> - being able to figure out complex biophysical systems,
> > >> - right? He can't even figure out the environment
> > >> - in his coffee cup. With "creationism" in a cup, is
> > >> - it any wonder he doesn't comprehend "finite Earth?"
>
> on Sun, 26 Nov Leonard Evens wrote:
> >David Gossman wrote:
> >> Translation, you are also having difficulty understanding the temporal
> >> aspects of the problem and you can't even be specific except to suggest
that
> >> I do not know science.
>
> Suggest!?? Let me be more specific Libertarian Gossman:
> you do not know science from from your ass. You are
> kinda dull too. I'll not waste my time on your infantile
> rebuttal again...you may look it up at deja.com.
Translation - you have been reduced to name calling, apparently unable to
understand the temporal aspects.
>
> >Care to compare credentials and training?
Sure, mine are on line, where are yours?
>
> Credentials and training!?
> Why? We have your words don't we? Idiot.
> Let's try understanding and knowledge, this is
> Usenet, not a school boy's resume.
And that explains your name calling response rather than a technical one. Do
you know what the word temporal means?
>
> >It seems to me this whole argument is a bit silly, but why not
> >throw my oar in.
>
> Leonard, you have more patience than I do. He's
> used all mine up. Good luck.
>
> >Leaving the cap on the coffee cup does not dilute
> >the coffee, but it tends to maintain whatever dilution it started
> >out in.
>
> Bingo! Keep in mind that the Limbaughtomy was furious
> at Kit Carson for *diluting* his coffee with lid sweat!
> That has a clear and specific meaning.
> For context, Limbaugh freely admits he's a scientific
> imbecile. To dilute is to weaken a substance by the
> *addition* of water or the like. He named the substance,
> he named the water; "sweat". Yes, "dilution" is
> precisely what the professional wordsmith meant!
> Creationism in a cup.
Yet both of you have failed to make a valid comparison for the state of the
coffee in the future.
>
> Oh sure, we could go chasing angles on a pin, and say
> anything insignificant to taste is non-sequitur. Or note
> that the margin of error in scooping out the grounds
> in preparation is far less. For myself, to make weaker coffee, I
> add 20% less grounds if I'm going to be sure to taste the difference.
>
> But this detracts from the whole point: Limbaugh was
> *furious* at Kit Carson for diluting his coffee with lid sweat!
> Not about admixture nor volatile oils, turpines, distillation
> fractions, vapor impurities, etc.
Yet, that was not the nature of the critisism or my response.
>
> >Removing the cap leads to some additional evaporation of
> >water and presumably some concentration of dissolved solids, although
> >I doubt if this is significant.
>
> Agree. And I'd bet my paycheck that evaporation of
> water is the major factor, it is insignificant, and
> make a smaller bet you would not take that bet. Below,
> you you seem to be splitting hairs.
Not significant? Can't say since I don't drink coffee. The fact is that it
is still more concentrated than if the lid is left on - simple science that
you failed to address.
>
> > But coffee also includes some
> >dissolved liquids which might also evaporate. And some of these
> >might evaporate faster. So whether you considered the coffee
> >more or less dilute would depend on which elements of the coffee
> >were considered most important. I suppose this would all come
> >down to a difficult question of exactly what the composition of
> >coffee is and what happens in a variety of containers under different
> >circumstances with caps and without caps.
> >
> >Still it seems to me that the major effect of leaving the cap on
> >is to keep the coffee warmer longer, and any effect on dilution
> >would be relatively minor compared to that.
>
> By taste, any dilution (by returning cooled water
> to the hotter liquid) *IS* non-existent. But again, this
> diverts from the fact that Limbaugh thought lid sweat was
> being created. Clue: lids don't sweat Rush, it only looks like it!
> There is no creationism in a cup.
>
> > If you can present a precise scientific analysis proving
> >otherwise, I wait to be convinced.
>
> Don't hold your breath. This guy seemingly believes
> in Limbaughtomyville! ...
Yet it was provided and your response is name calling - typical.
>
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> |David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
> >> |President | http://gcisolutions.com |
> >> | The Business of Problem Solving |
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >> "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
> >> it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
>
> ...and sci-fi technology too, I'll bet. No science, all
> sci-fi optimism. Typical anti-environmentalist.
> Is that the same libertarian Lazarus Long who boned his
> identical sisters and his mother by trickery, and boned many
> of his many grandchildren in Time Enough for Love?
> Typical Libertarian..... How old were his sisters again
> in that orgy? About eleven or twelve? And he married
> his adopted daughter? Do we see a pattern here?
> ...No? ...Then see the earlier thread:
> LIBERTARIAN platform on child prostitution..
> Oh!!!... What a coincidence!
Wow, can't deal with the quote so you launch a personal attack on a
fictional character. That is grasping at straws - also quite amusing to
watch - please keep going.
>
> I guess you guys call that liberty?
> I call it all the freedom you can buy,
> and not one drop more.
>
I doubt that you have any understanding of science or freedom based on this
post.
David Gossman
fungee
This appears to be a problem at Deja. It happens often, and they
usually fix things in an hour or so. Just try back later. You can
probably also page way ahead by modifying the URL by hand. Record the
URL, page ahead, and compare the new URL with the previous page. You'll
find what parameter to change I bet. If you increment this parameter by
50 instead of 1, you'll fly forward 50 pages.
--
fungee... Unsolicited commercial email (spam) is not desired. Senders
of spam will help me beta test new virii, mailbombs, and/or DoS attacks.
Sending spam to this address constitutes agreement to these terms.
Doug Bashford
on Thu, 30 Nov "David Gossman" wrote:
about: Re: Who'll win? the COMPUTER or the GOOBER ???
>Doug Bashford <see.m...@theBeach.edu> wrote
>>
>> > >> - Limbaugh thinks leaving the cap on your coffee cup will
>> > >> - dilute it. For that reason he gave Kit Carson hell
>> > >> - one day. His theory was, the lid sweats and dilutes
>> > >> - the coffee. laughingggg... Ya, the man is a real
>> > >> - scientific genius, alright. He should have NO problem
>> > >> - being able to figure out complex biophysical systems,
>> > >> - right? He can't even figure out the environment
>> > >> - in his coffee cup. With "creationism" in a cup, is
>> > >> - it any wonder he doesn't comprehend "finite Earth?"
>>
>> on Sun, 26 Nov Leonard Evens wrote:
>> >David Gossman wrote:
>> >> Translation, you are also having difficulty understanding the temporal
>> >> aspects of the problem and you can't even be specific except to suggest
>that
>> >> I do not know science.
>>
>> Suggest!?? Let me be more specific Libertarian Gossman:
>> you do not know science from from your ass. You are
>> kinda dull too. I'll not waste my time on your infantile
>> rebuttal again...you may look it up at deja.com.
>
>Translation - you have been reduced to name calling, apparently unable to
>understand the temporal aspects.
No. Translation: you piss me off.
You act like the consumate dittohead parrot, yet
you are a Libertarian. Bad combo.
>> Let's try understanding and knowledge, this is
>> Usenet, not a school boy's resume.
>
>And that explains your name calling response rather than a technical one.
Ummmm let's see here....you give a non sequiteur argument
of no validity, and to humor you, you expect a technical
argument from me? Clue: your argument isn't what you
seemingly think it is.
Name calling? Look you dipshit coward, why did you
fail to respond to Evans? You passive-agressive cowardly asshole.
I don't call people names! <laughing!>
What it boild down to is, you are not worth my getting serious.
> Do
>you know what the word temporal means?
Do you know what "bingo" and "agree" means?
How about:
>> >is to keep the coffee warmer longer, and any effect on dilution
>> >would be relatively minor compared to that.
You ignored that. And everything Evans wrote. Do you
have a reading comprehension problem?
If you are a dittohead, the answer is yes.
You act like a blind dittohead -- if it quacks....
>> >It seems to me this whole argument is a bit silly, but why not
>> >throw my oar in.
Silly.....moi !!??
>> Leonard, you have more patience than I do. He's
>> used all mine up. Good luck.
>>
>> >Leaving the cap on the coffee cup does not dilute
>> >the coffee, but it tends to maintain whatever dilution it started
>> >out in.
>>
>> Bingo! Keep in mind that the Limbaughtomy was furious
>> at Kit Carson for *diluting* his coffee with lid sweat!
>> That has a clear and specific meaning.
>> For context, Limbaugh freely admits he's a scientific
>> imbecile. To dilute is to weaken a substance by the
>> *addition* of water or the like. He named the substance,
>> he named the water; "sweat". Yes, "dilution" is
>> precisely what the professional wordsmith meant!
>> Creationism in a cup.
>
>Yet both of you have failed to make a valid comparison for the state of the
>coffee in the future.
You must think yourself pretty important to assume that we would
address a point you scooped out of thin air. Important !? Hell,
the egoistic viewpoint the basis of Libertarianism.
>> Oh sure, we could go chasing angles on a pin, and say
>> anything insignificant to taste is non-sequitur. Or note
>> that the margin of error in scooping out the grounds
>> in preparation is far less. For myself, to make weaker coffee, I
>> add 20% less grounds if I'm going to be sure to taste the difference.
>>
>> But this detracts from the whole point: Limbaugh was
>> *furious* at Kit Carson for diluting his coffee with lid sweat!
>> Not about admixture nor volatile oils, turpines, distillation
>> fractions, vapor impurities, etc.
>
>Yet, that was not the nature of the critisism or my response.
Who cares what your response was? It did not
address Rush "I don't tell you what to think" Limbaugh's
argument. Your attempt to explain away his scientific
idiocy has no bearing, and is so trasparent, I hesitate
to respond. Your illogical argument, more an attempt
to stand up for your man, needs no response from me, it's
self evident.
>> >Removing the cap leads to some additional evaporation of
>> >water and presumably some concentration of dissolved solids, although
>> >I doubt if this is significant.
>>
>> Agree. And I'd bet my paycheck that evaporation of
>> water is the major factor, it is insignificant, and
>> make a smaller bet you would not take that bet. Below,
>> you you seem to be splitting hairs.
>
>Not significant? Can't say since I don't drink coffee. The fact is that it
>is still more concentrated than if the lid is left on - simple science that
>you failed to address.
Not a problem. That is a fact. Your problem is, getting
that fact to address my argument. Facts are not arguments.
Clue: insignificance is not a reason to get furious.
But providing you with an education or common sense is NOT my job.
Evans:
>> > But coffee also includes some
>> >dissolved liquids which might also evaporate. And some of these
>> >might evaporate faster. So whether you considered the coffee
>> >more or less dilute would depend on which elements of the coffee
>> >were considered most important. I suppose this would all come
>> >down to a difficult question of exactly what the composition of
>> >coffee is and what happens in a variety of containers under different
>> >circumstances with caps and without caps.
>> >
>> >Still it seems to me that the major effect of leaving the cap on
>> >is to keep the coffee warmer longer, and any effect on dilution
>> >would be relatively minor compared to that.
>>
>> By taste, any dilution (by returning cooled water
>> to the hotter liquid) *IS* non-existent. But again, this
>> diverts from the fact that Limbaugh thought lid sweat was
>> being created. Clue: lids don't sweat Rush, it only looks like it!
>> There is no creationism in a cup.
>> > If you can present a precise scientific analysis proving
>> >otherwise, I wait to be convinced.
>>
>> Don't hold your breath. This guy seemingly believes
>> in Limbaughtomyville! ...
>
>Yet it was provided and your response is name calling - typical.
What was provided? Do you think sqealing "IS NOT" in
a million words deserves a lucid response? If I had any
respect for your kind, it would deserve only silence.
>> >> "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
>> >> it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
>>
>> ...and sci-fi technology too, I'll bet. No science, all
>> sci-fi optimism. Typical anti-environmentalist.
>> Is that the same libertarian Lazarus Long who boned his
>> identical sisters and his mother by trickery, and boned many
>> of his many grandchildren in Time Enough for Love?
>> Typical Libertarian..... How old were his sisters again
>> in that orgy? About eleven or twelve? And he married
>> his adopted daughter? Do we see a pattern here?
>> ...No? ...Then see the earlier thread:
>> LIBERTARIAN platform on child prostitution..
>> Oh!!!... What a coincidence!
>
>Wow, can't deal with the quote so you launch a personal attack on a
>fictional character.
I believe most literary critics consider anti-environmentalist
LL to be Heinlein's alter ego. Get an education.
He is seemingly your hero too. Why else would you
put/cite such a lame quote in *your sig*?
>That is grasping at straws - also quite amusing to
>watch - please keep going.
>>
>> I guess you guys call that liberty?
>> I call it all the freedom you can buy,
>> and not one drop more.
>>
>I doubt that you have any understanding of science or freedom based on this
>post. >David Gossman
I consider that a compliment. Thanks,.
>*therefore your "individual as prime" must be rejected. In fact,
>*what I have done is very close to defeat Randism in its intirety,
>*and I think he is afraid to continue to that enevitable end.
>*Because doing so would be objective and rational rather than
>*dogmatic, as one might find in, say....a quasi-religion.
And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth,
this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who
will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This god, this one word:
"I."
Ayn Rand, Anthem
Joseph R. Darancette
David Gossman
Doug Bashford <see.m...@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
scientific logic.
>
> >> Let's try understanding and knowledge, this is
> >> Usenet, not a school boy's resume.
> >
> >And that explains your name calling response rather than a technical one.
>
> Ummmm let's see here....you give a non sequiteur argument
> of no validity, and to humor you, you expect a technical
> argument from me? Clue: your argument isn't what you
> seemingly think it is.
Then why can't you counter it with something more than name calling...hmmm.
>
> Name calling? Look you dipshit coward, why did you
> fail to respond to Evans? You passive-agressive cowardly asshole.
> I don't call people names! <laughing!>
At yourself?
>
> What it boild down to is, you are not worth my getting serious.
Because you are apparently incapable of dealing with the issue on a
scientific basis, instead making errors in the science yourself in order to
launch ridicule of others.
>
> > Do
> >you know what the word temporal means?
>
> Do you know what "bingo" and "agree" means?
> How about:
> >> >is to keep the coffee warmer longer, and any effect on dilution
> >> >would be relatively minor compared to that.
> You ignored that. And everything Evans wrote. Do you
> have a reading comprehension problem?
> If you are a dittohead, the answer is yes.
> You act like a blind dittohead -- if it quacks....
"Relatively minor"? Is that science? Really, you made an accusation based on
your apparent inability to understand basic science and that is your
defense - you are funny.
>
> >> >It seems to me this whole argument is a bit silly, but why not
> >> >throw my oar in.
>
> Silly.....moi !!??
>
> >> Leonard, you have more patience than I do. He's
> >> used all mine up. Good luck.
> >>
> >> >Leaving the cap on the coffee cup does not dilute
> >> >the coffee, but it tends to maintain whatever dilution it started
> >> >out in.
> >>
> >> Bingo! Keep in mind that the Limbaughtomy was furious
> >> at Kit Carson for *diluting* his coffee with lid sweat!
> >> That has a clear and specific meaning.
> >> For context, Limbaugh freely admits he's a scientific
> >> imbecile. To dilute is to weaken a substance by the
> >> *addition* of water or the like. He named the substance,
> >> he named the water; "sweat". Yes, "dilution" is
> >> precisely what the professional wordsmith meant!
> >> Creationism in a cup.
> >
> >Yet both of you have failed to make a valid comparison for the state of
the
> >coffee in the future.
>
> You must think yourself pretty important to assume that we would
> address a point you scooped out of thin air. Important !? Hell,
> the egoistic viewpoint the basis of Libertarianism.
Science based on Libertarianism? You really are grasping at straws and
making yourself look awfully funny in the process. The point I made was not
scooped out of the air, it was based on the original accusation that talked
about the state of the coffee relative to a temporal/dynamic ennvironment
rather than a static one. You both failed to deal with the scientific facts
of that aspect instead prefering to make yourself to be scientificly
illiterate by making erroneous statements and then defending yourself with
name calling.
>
> >> Oh sure, we could go chasing angles on a pin, and say
> >> anything insignificant to taste is non-sequitur. Or note
> >> that the margin of error in scooping out the grounds
> >> in preparation is far less. For myself, to make weaker coffee, I
> >> add 20% less grounds if I'm going to be sure to taste the difference.
> >>
> >> But this detracts from the whole point: Limbaugh was
> >> *furious* at Kit Carson for diluting his coffee with lid sweat!
> >> Not about admixture nor volatile oils, turpines, distillation
> >> fractions, vapor impurities, etc.
> >
> >Yet, that was not the nature of the critisism or my response.
>
> Who cares what your response was? It did not
> address Rush "I don't tell you what to think" Limbaugh's
> argument. Your attempt to explain away his scientific
> idiocy has no bearing, and is so trasparent, I hesitate
> to respond. Your illogical argument, more an attempt
> to stand up for your man, needs no response from me, it's
> self evident.
Originally I made no comment at all about Rush's statement but rather about
the lack of scientific logic in the critique of Rush's statement. You
apparently feel that such is a defense of Rush's logic - hardly - please try
harder, you are becoming amusingly easy to deal with.
>
> >> >Removing the cap leads to some additional evaporation of
> >> >water and presumably some concentration of dissolved solids, although
> >> >I doubt if this is significant.
> >>
> >> Agree. And I'd bet my paycheck that evaporation of
> >> water is the major factor, it is insignificant, and
> >> make a smaller bet you would not take that bet. Below,
> >> you you seem to be splitting hairs.
> >
> >Not significant? Can't say since I don't drink coffee. The fact is that
it
> >is still more concentrated than if the lid is left on - simple science
that
> >you failed to address.
>
> Not a problem. That is a fact. Your problem is, getting
> that fact to address my argument. Facts are not arguments.
They are if that is all that is needed to deal with an error in fact.
> Clue: insignificance is not a reason to get furious.
Did I get furious? Seems to me that you are the one that has resorted to
name calling.
> But providing you with an education or common sense is NOT my job.
Nor are you qualied - since I did not ask you for an education but rather
you attemtpted to attack me personally for making a scientific critique I
hardly think you are qualified to provide me or anyone with an education on
science or logic, much less common sense.
What was provided was a scientific logic based on a temporal examination of
the scenario. I'm sorry you have difficulty with such concepts. Should I use
smaller words? Your respect is not needed or desired.
>
> >> >> "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
> >> >> it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
> >>
> >> ...and sci-fi technology too, I'll bet. No science, all
> >> sci-fi optimism. Typical anti-environmentalist.
> >> Is that the same libertarian Lazarus Long who boned his
> >> identical sisters and his mother by trickery, and boned many
> >> of his many grandchildren in Time Enough for Love?
> >> Typical Libertarian..... How old were his sisters again
> >> in that orgy? About eleven or twelve? And he married
> >> his adopted daughter? Do we see a pattern here?
> >> ...No? ...Then see the earlier thread:
> >> LIBERTARIAN platform on child prostitution..
> >> Oh!!!... What a coincidence!
> >
> >Wow, can't deal with the quote so you launch a personal attack on a
> >fictional character.
>
> I believe most literary critics consider anti-environmentalist
> LL to be Heinlein's alter ego. Get an education.
I have one and my background is on line. Is yours? What is your education?
(Fair question since you brought it up.) PS If you really want to understand
Heinlein I would recommend "Grumbles from the Grave".
> He is seemingly your hero too. Why else would you
> put/cite such a lame quote in *your sig*?
"Hero"? - no - just a good science fiction author who made insightful
comments on the human condition. There are a number of science fiction
authors who have the intellignece to see through the extremist green
positions and have poked fun at it. Jerry Pournelle is an example. Ever read
"Fallen Angel"?
>
> >That is grasping at straws - also quite amusing to
> >watch - please keep going.
> >>
> >> I guess you guys call that liberty?
> >> I call it all the freedom you can buy,
> >> and not one drop more.
> >>
> >I doubt that you have any understanding of science or freedom based on
this
> >post. >David Gossman
>
> I consider that a compliment. Thanks,.
You are welcome.
>
> >*therefore your "individual as prime" must be rejected. In fact,
> >*what I have done is very close to defeat Randism in its intirety,
> >*and I think he is afraid to continue to that enevitable end.
> >*Because doing so would be objective and rational rather than
> >*dogmatic, as one might find in, say....a quasi-religion.
>
> And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth,
> this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who
> will grant them joy and peace and pride.
>
> This god, this one word:
>
> "I."
>
> Ayn Rand, Anthem
> Joseph R. Darancette
>
Your point? Oh, you are attempting to launch an attack on my politics by
attacking a fictional character from a novel written by an author I admire,
all because you are apparently incapable of dealing with the temporal
aspects of the concentration of a cup of hot coffee over time. You are
amusing.
David Gossman
Scott Nudds
: Still name calling - is that all you are capable of - not even a shread of
: scientific logic.
Liars like Gossman are worthy of little else.
Gossman defends murder on political grounds:
--------------------------------------------
"But you have been told that I do not support murder. Your claim that I
do is a lie. ...
There is no right to life for someone that violates or threatens the
right of others." - "David Gossman" <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> -
austin.general,sci.environment,talk.environment - Aug 9, 1999
---
Gossman's lies
--------------
"I suppose this is consistant with the claim made by
Libertarian/Rayndite Gossman who holds that those who threaten the
rights he claims to hold, can be murdered without legal penalty." -
Scott Nudds
"Nudds yet again provides a post that proves himself the liar since I
said no such thing." - David Gossman - April 10, 2000 - Sci.Environment
There is no right to life for someone that violates or threatens the right
of others." - "David Gossman" <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> -
austin.general,sci.environment,talk.environment - Aug 9, 1999
David Gossman
"Scott Nudds" <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:90sfod$cuf$5...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
> David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
> : Still name calling - is that all you are capable of - not even a shread
of
> : scientific logic.
>
> Liars like Gossman are worthy of little else.
>
> Gossman defends murder on political grounds:
> --------------------------------------------
> "But you have been told that I do not support murder. Your claim that I
> do is a lie. ...
>
> There is no right to life for someone that violates or threatens the
> right of others." - "David Gossman" <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> -
> austin.general,sci.environment,talk.environment - Aug 9, 1999
>
So, Nudds why won't you answer the question of wether or not you would use
deadly force to protect your spouse or child? Come on Nudds, lets see of you
have the guts to enter into a logical discussion of the issue you have
raised again or if you will yet again show your true colors.
> ---
> Gossman's lies
> --------------
> "I suppose this is consistant with the claim made by
> Libertarian/Rayndite Gossman who holds that those who threaten the
> rights he claims to hold, can be murdered without legal penalty." -
> Scott Nudds
>
> "Nudds yet again provides a post that proves himself the liar since I
> said no such thing." - David Gossman - April 10, 2000 - Sci.Environment
>
> There is no right to life for someone that violates or threatens the right
> of others." - "David Gossman" <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> -
> austin.general,sci.environment,talk.environment - Aug 9, 1999
>
Nudds even provides the quotes that shows himself incapable of
differentiating between self defense and murder or is he simply incapable of
understanding English. Take for example that his first statement of the
three quotes above references "legal penalty", "murdered", and "rights he
claims to hold", yet the quote he claims to provide as a counter to that
says nothing of the kind. Well, Nudds I guess your imagination is something
that we are seeing yet again - or is this more of your attempt at mind
reading - oops, no difference.
My guess is that Nudds will yet again, after a small number of exchanges
that demonstrate his lack of intellect, honesty and desire to be forthright,
slink off and not respond. Shall set up stakes on how long that will take?
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
Scott Nudds
: So, Nudds why won't you answer the question of wether or not you would use
: deadly force to protect your spouse or child?
I have answered your question on several occasions, and you have
recognized the answer. Now you claim the question has not been answerd.
This simply proves yet again that you are a perpetual liar.
: > Gossman's lies
: > --------------
: > "I suppose this is consistant with the claim made by
: > Libertarian/Rayndite Gossman who holds that those who threaten the
: > rights he claims to hold, can be murdered without legal penalty." -
: > Scott Nudds
: >
: > "Nudds yet again provides a post that proves himself the liar since I
: > said no such thing." - David Gossman - April 10, 2000 - Sci.Environment
: >
: > There is no right to life for someone that violates or threatens the right
: > of others." - "David Gossman" <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> -
: > austin.general,sci.environment,talk.environment - Aug 9, 1999
Gossman lies:
: Nudds even provides the quotes that shows himself incapable of
: differentiating between self defense and murder or is he simply incapable of
: understanding English.
Gossman lies when he claims that he made any reference to self defense.
In fact his statement is absolute, and he has used it to justify murder
that will further his political goals.
In those cases he redefines "self defense" to mean opposition to his
political ideology.
Gossman for example is a strong supporter of murder by the state when it
is exorcised by Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. and his other conservative
brethren.
Gossman lies:
: Take for example that his first statement of the
: three quotes above references "legal penalty", "murdered", and "rights he
: claims to hold", yet the quote he claims to provide as a counter to that
: says nothing of the kind.
Is Gossman attempting to now claim that although he has the right to
murder those who would violate his rights, he is obligated to pay a legal
penalty? Is he claiming that he has the right to murder people if they
threaten rights he claims not to hold?
His complaint is clearly nothing more than a hollow complaint made for
the sake of having something to whine about.
"The character of the libertarian movement is now such that all true
lovers of liberty must oppose it. It has already achieved on the
intellectual level a seemingly impossible synthesis:
anarcho-totalitarianism. Incoherence, however, does not vouch safe
ineffectiveness." - Ernest van den Haag, National Review, June 8, 1979
David Gossman
> David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
> : So, Nudds why won't you answer the question of wether or not you would
use
> : deadly force to protect your spouse or child?
>
> I have answered your question on several occasions, and you have
> recognized the answer. Now you claim the question has not been answerd.
I have never seen a direct answer to that question. I have seen you try to
make more false accusations against me while attmepting to duck the question
and have noted that. If you have given a straight answer you would not have
a problem giving it again, would you?
>
> This simply proves yet again that you are a perpetual liar.
>
Rather it proves you have not a shread of real honesty, that you would
attempt to point to yet another false accusation as an answer. So, let's try
again. Would you use deadly force to defend your spouse or child? Please,
this does not require anything but a simple yes or no, unless you would like
to elaborate on the circumstances that might cause you to do the opposite of
your basic answer. If your answer is yes, would you consider that murder?
>
> : > Gossman's lies
> : > --------------
> : > "I suppose this is consistant with the claim made by
> : > Libertarian/Rayndite Gossman who holds that those who threaten the
> : > rights he claims to hold, can be murdered without legal penalty." -
> : > Scott Nudds
> : >
> : > "Nudds yet again provides a post that proves himself the liar since I
> : > said no such thing." - David Gossman - April 10, 2000 -
Sci.Environment
> : >
> : > There is no right to life for someone that violates or threatens the
right
> : > of others." - "David Gossman" <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> -
> : > austin.general,sci.environment,talk.environment - Aug 9, 1999
>
> Gossman lies:
> : Nudds even provides the quotes that shows himself incapable of
> : differentiating between self defense and murder or is he simply
incapable of
> : understanding English.
>
> Gossman lies when he claims that he made any reference to self defense.
> In fact his statement is absolute, and he has used it to justify murder
> that will further his political goals.
Hardly, since I did not use either the phrase murder or political goals -
you are just having difficulty with my definition of self defense - since
you won't provide yours you are simply trying to make false accusations
rather than discussing an issue that you again brought up.
>
> In those cases he redefines "self defense" to mean opposition to his
> political ideology.
Rather looking at what I actually said, in the quote you provided, I was
defining it as using deadly force when ones rights are threatened by
another. PS We are not talking about your list of rights - whatever they
are - we are talking about those fundemental "inalienable" rights referred
to by the framers of the Constitution. I have asked if you would use deadly
force to prevent a kidnapper from taking your child even if you had certain
knowledge that no other harm would result to the child. Would you? That is a
relevant question. Any attempt to duck it or twist it will simply
demosntrate your continued "honesty".
>
> Gossman for example is a strong supporter of murder by the state when it
> is exorcised by Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. and his other conservative
> brethren.
I have never supported murder by anyone, especially the state. Of course if
Nudds thinks that those men have committed murder he is free to prosecute in
a variety of courts. The fact that he makes such baseless implied
accusations without taking any such action simply further demonstrates his
special brand of "honesty". (Really, Nudds you make this to easy.)
>
> Gossman lies:
> : Take for example that his first statement of the
> : three quotes above references "legal penalty", "murdered", and "rights
he
> : claims to hold", yet the quote he claims to provide as a counter to that
> : says nothing of the kind.
>
> Is Gossman attempting to now claim that although he has the right to
> murder those who would violate his rights, he is obligated to pay a legal
> penalty? Is he claiming that he has the right to murder people if they
> threaten rights he claims not to hold?
Am I? Wow Nudds, you ask a question - oh, I see, just rhetorical - based yet
again on your vivid imagination - get help soon Nudds, your self delusion
problem is not getting better.
>
> His complaint is clearly nothing more than a hollow complaint made for
> the sake of having something to whine about.
>
Actually it was done to goad you into continuing to make an absolute fool
out of yourself - I find it amusing to watch you do so.
>
> "The character of the libertarian movement is now such that all true
> lovers of liberty must oppose it. It has already achieved on the
> intellectual level a seemingly impossible synthesis:
> anarcho-totalitarianism. Incoherence, however, does not vouch safe
> ineffectiveness." - Ernest van den Haag, National Review, June 8, 1979
>
Quit an amusing quote - based on what logic - oh, Nuddsian logic - typical.
David Gossman
Scott Nudds
David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
: I have never seen a direct answer to that question.
Several weeks ago youi admitted that I had answered the question.
You just can't stop lying now can you Gossman?
: > This simply proves yet again that you are a perpetual liar.
Gossman yammers:
: Rather it proves you have not a shread of real honesty, that you would
: attempt to point to yet another false accusation as an answer.
Tell us Gossman. Were you lying when you claimed that I had answered
your question or are you lying now when you claim that I have not?
Gossman yammers:
: Hardly, since I did not use either the phrase murder or political goals -
: you are just having difficulty with my definition of self defense - since
: you won't provide yours you are simply trying to make false accusations
: rather than discussing an issue that you again brought up.
Indeed. Where you dishonestly redefine "self defense" to mean what is
now considered murder.
The dishonest redefinition of language is the hallmark of Libertarian
Randite Ideology.
Gossman lies
------------
"I have not accused anyone of murder." Gossman sci.environment 1998
"I will say it again. He (Stalin) was a murderer because he conspired
and ordered those deaths. Do you refute that fact of history too." -
Gossman sci.environment 1998
"Do you think that Stalin's murder of millions were in fact justifiable
homicides? Is that part of the socialist, Nuddsian domestication of man
program?" - Gossman sci.environment 1998
---
First: What Gossman claims is fact, is in fact assumption. Specifically
he is assuming in his defense, something that he is ultimately
attempting to defend.
Such is the quality of Gossman's thought process.
Second: Gossman has proven himself unable to find the clause in the
definition which prohibits the user of the word should the
accusation be a fact.
Third: If Gossman's version of English were accepted than an accusation
would always be an untrue claim, as in Gossman's version of
Rayndite newspeak, an accusation isn't an accusation if the
statement is true. Hence it can only be an accusation if the
statement is false.
Such is the quality and honesty of Gossman's thought process.
I prefer honesty.
David Gossman
>
> David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
> : I have never seen a direct answer to that question.
>
> Several weeks ago youi admitted that I had answered the question.
>
> You just can't stop lying now can you Gossman?
If I had you would have provided the quote. Who is lying?
>
> : > This simply proves yet again that you are a perpetual liar.
>
> Gossman yammers:
> : Rather it proves you have not a shread of real honesty, that you would
> : attempt to point to yet another false accusation as an answer.
>
> Tell us Gossman. Were you lying when you claimed that I had answered
> your question or are you lying now when you claim that I have not?
>
Are you lying claiming that I did or are you lying when you claim you
answered? How about both? You love to provide quotes - why can't you this
time? Do you understand the difference between a response and an answer?
>
> Gossman yammers:
> : Hardly, since I did not use either the phrase murder or political
goals -
> : you are just having difficulty with my definition of self defense -
since
> : you won't provide yours you are simply trying to make false accusations
> : rather than discussing an issue that you again brought up.
>
> Indeed. Where you dishonestly redefine "self defense" to mean what is
> now considered murder.
Really? Oh, more of your bizzare attemempt to read minds and attempt to
attack others personally when you have failed to deal with the issues on a
logical basis. This is understandable as there is no apparent logic behind
your position. That you then clip what is asked is further proof of your
inability to respond - so be it - just post again and prove yourself a
troll.
>
> The dishonest redefinition of language is the hallmark of Libertarian
> Randite Ideology.
>
<Nudds repeated personal attack based on his self deception clipped.>
> I prefer honesty.
>
Then you would answer my questions rather than clipping them and quit
repeating your attempts at deception that have been answered.
David Gossman
Scott Nudds
: If I had you would have provided the quote. Who is lying?
Here is the quote indicating that you are lying. You are perpetually
caught lying.
Gossman's support for murder by the state
-----------------------------------------
"Always the hypocrite, Gossman - defender of individual liberty -
supports state sponsored murder." - Scott Nudds
Gossman's response -
"Just retaliation is not murder Nudds. There is no right to be free
from from just retaliation, capital punishment is not an initiaion of
force."...
"The legitimate use of force to defend individual rights is by
definition not statist. By definition that legitimate use of force is
not murder." - David Gossman - Sci.Environment - 10,8,98
: > Gossman yammers:
: > : Rather it proves you have not a shread of real honesty, that you would
: > : attempt to point to yet another false accusation as an answer.
: >
: > Tell us Gossman. Were you lying when you claimed that I had answered
: > your question or are you lying now when you claim that I have not?
Gossman barks:
: Are you lying claiming that I did or are you lying when you claim you
: answered? How about both? You love to provide quotes - why can't you this
: time? Do you understand the difference between a response and an answer?
What a shame Gossman so clearly indicates that he is incapable of
researching his own argument.
Gossman is incapable of posting content, and now proves incapable of
even supporting his own dishonest accusations.
: > Indeed. Where you dishonestly redefine "self defense" to mean what is
: > now considered murder.
Gossman lies:
: Really? Oh, more of your bizzare attemempt to read minds and attempt to
: attack others personally when you have failed to deal with the issues on a
: logical basis.
Unlike you and your Libertarian brethren Gossman, honest individuals
don't include the dishonest redefinition of the english language in their
model of what constitutes "logical thought." Neither do they act as
deceit was the ultimate virtue, as you do.
If you feel that others need to <read your mind> to extract meaning from
your words, then you have admitted that what you write is incomprehensable
without reading your mind.
This is exactly what people should expect of someone like yourself who
is regularly caught dishonestly redefining the english language, as you
have been caught doing.
David Gossman barks:
: This is understandable as there is no apparent logic behind
: your position.
I oppose murder. How sad that you find no logic in that position.
David Gossman
> David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
> : If I had you would have provided the quote. Who is lying?
>
> Here is the quote indicating that you are lying. You are perpetually
> caught lying.
Yet this has been quite thoroughly shown to be a figment of your imagination
and apparent difficulty with the English language - try again.
Confirmed, you do not understand the difference between an response and an
answer - typical Nudds.
>
> : > Indeed. Where you dishonestly redefine "self defense" to mean what
is
> : > now considered murder.
>
> Gossman lies:
> : Really? Oh, more of your bizzare attemempt to read minds and attempt to
> : attack others personally when you have failed to deal with the issues on
a
> : logical basis.
>
> Unlike you and your Libertarian brethren Gossman, honest individuals
> don't include the dishonest redefinition of the english language in their
> model of what constitutes "logical thought." Neither do they act as
> deceit was the ultimate virtue, as you do.
Yet redefining terms to suit your arguement is somthing you routinely do
even when looking a what others say. It would appear to be necessary to
support your fragile self delusions - get help soon Nudds. >
> If you feel that others need to <read your mind> to extract meaning from
> your words, then you have admitted that what you write is incomprehensable
> without reading your mind.
It is hardly necessary - yet it is apprently what you feel a need to do in
order to come up with your position - quite sad really.
>
> This is exactly what people should expect of someone like yourself who
> is regularly caught dishonestly redefining the english language, as you
> have been caught doing.
>
Being caught by you is like...well you get my drift...always a hoot Nudds,
but keep trying so that we can continue to laugh at your silliness.
>
> David Gossman barks:
> : This is understandable as there is no apparent logic behind
> : your position.
>
> I oppose murder. How sad that you find no logic in that position.
>
Yet you do not define it. How convenient of you. PS Then you clip the rest
of my post because of your apparent intellectual inability to deal with it -
or is this another example of your "honesty"? Always hard to tell with
Nudds.
>
<Nudds sad attempt to attack me via his continued repeated posting of quotes
that have been shown not to be what he imagines them to be clipped.>
David Gossman