Charades versus "The Game" - alt.usage.english

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
alt.usage.english
Message from discussion Charades versus "The Game"
Path: r9ni18238pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:51:07 -0500
From: Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Charades versus "The Game"
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:50:58 -0400
Message-ID: <5uuon753smi0o15cq7gqk4fr4qil56u56r@4ax.com>
References: <ylfky5qhkj7w.fsf@dd-b.net> <56een75l35psmba6jps7brumf0o2b51mrc@4ax.com> <ylfkmx6wf6qs.fsf@dd-b.net> <8o7hn7lf7tfsa1ocbeadr5qm1vbjklqpmq@4ax.com> <ylfkk41ydwi8.fsf@dd-b.net> <q5njn7pbd1q39pt4qq1uh4ivtg6j28q93v@4ax.com> <ylfk4nt2c9j7.fsf@dd-b.net> <4s9kn7prnk2i2d1g756m89qarr9shjacgi@4ax.com> <ylfkehs5bw58.fsf@dd-b.net> <igamn7hkshghsmd9vf445kdj7omn58snje@4ax.com> <ylfkbon88zap.fsf@dd-b.net> <eprmn757n71k49ascjbiuoogekob99gvs0@4ax.com> <jlg09b$k3n$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 97
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 23:14:52 +0000 (UTC), elzbet
<dont-spam...@gotmail.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:50:35 -0400, Mason Barge wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:07:10 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:34:43 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:45:32 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
>>>>>> <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:43:59 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
>>>>>>>> <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 22:52:59 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
>>>>>>>>>> <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:00:03 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
>>>>>>>>>>>> <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's why I don't mind calling something "proven" if it
>>>>>>>>>>>> accurately explains and predicts something that was a puzzle
>>>>>>>>>>>> before.  It's a meaningless term otherwise, so why not give it
>>>>>>>>>>>> a use?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Because it means something in mathematics, which is close enough
>>>>>>>>>>>to physics that using the term differently in the two places
>>>>>>>>>>>will cause confusion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics is "proven" only within the confines of a
>>>>>>>>>> mathematical system, none of which have been shown to be
>>>>>>>>>> adequate to describe universal phenomena and all of which depend
>>>>>>>>>> on axioms.  They are simply models based on assumptions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Many of which are routinely used to describe real-world phenomema.
>>>>>>>>> But the fact that these purely artificial systems turn out to
>>>>>>>>>have wide-ranging real-world uses remains a fascinating surprise. 
>>>>>>>>>(My degree is in math, back when.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But none of which has ever been used to describe *all* real-world
>>>>>>>> phenomena.  I'm not bashing math, science, or the great leaps they
>>>>>>>> have given us in manipulating and predicting physical phenomena,
>>>>>>>> but rather the very notion of comparing science and religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, religion has never successfully explained *anything*; its
>>>>>>>attempts have consistently been proven wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a perfect example of confusing fact and belief on the "God
>>>>>> does not exist" side of the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is considerable written testimony by persons who claim to be
>>>>>> eyewitnesses.  You may not credit it, but you cannot correctly
>>>>>> describe your belief as proven fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you confusing history with science?  But, as we're discovering
>>>>>more and more, eye-witnesses are among the *WORST* evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Your (doubly emphasized) comment as to its reliability goes to
>>>> credibility, not sufficiency, as lawyers say.
>>>>
>>>> And actually, the unreliability of eyewitness evidence in court has
>>>> nothing to do with the reliability of eyewitness accounts of Biblical
>>>> miracles, say, the resurrection of Christ.
>>>
>>>Of which we have no eye-witness accounts.  The so-called "gospels" were
>>>written considerably later, and nearly certainly not by the named
>>>authors.  They may possibly represent the recording of an oral tradition
>>>originating with the named authors, or something...possibly.
>>>
>>>> The current criticisms of eyewitness testimony in court stem from the
>>>> likelihood that the witness will identify the wrong person.  The
>>>> criticisms of the evangelists would be that they were lying and/or
>>>> insane. One wouldn't suspect them of misidentifying Jesus.
>>>
>>>Or fail to identify him being in a coma instead of actually dead, say.
>> 
>> I'm no medical expert, but I had always heard that the piercing of his
>> side with a spear, resulting in a flow of blood and water, was supposed
>> to be proof of his death.  (Assuming, of course, that one credits the
>> incident.)
>
>Yeah, because a bleeding injury to one's side is invariably lethal. :P

Proof, not cause.  I think it was something to do with the water.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
