Higgs boson found (again?)

[cameo]

All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the "God
particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago, so why
the excitement again?

[hamilton]

The last time was inconclusive.

This time will be inconclusive as well.

There is no god.

h

[Gib Bogle]

But there are many gods ;)

[Michael A. Terrell]

The talking heads all ride the short bus to work.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

[hamilton]

As many gods as man wants to invent.

http://www.godchecker.com/

[cameo]

So who started calling it the "God particle" and why? I assume it was a
scientist and they are supposed to be ateists, right?

[Gib Bogle]

;)

[Tim Wescott]

It was the press, and particle physicists just reach for the aspirin
bottle when they hear it.

Scientists as a class are, indeed, presumed to be atheists. At least
they are supposed to be so by fundamentalist demagogues. Probably
because when you're a physicist, it's hard to believe in a big magic
white guy in the sky who wants us to hate gays.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[George Herold]

On Mar 15, 3:06 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:37:36 -0700, cameo wrote:
> > On 3/14/2013 8:33 PM, hamilton wrote:
> >> On 3/14/2013 9:24 PM, cameo wrote:
> >>> All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the
> >>> "God particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago,
> >>> so why the excitement again?
>
> >> The last time was inconclusive.
>
> >> This time will be inconclusive as well.
>
> >> There is no god.
>
> > So who started calling it the "God particle" and why? I assume it was a
> > scientist and they are supposed to be ateists, right?
>
> It was the press, and particle physicists just reach for the aspirin
> bottle when they hear it.

I think we can blame Leon Ledermen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman

Though I think I might have heard him once say that it was the
publisher who picked the name. Still he went alng with it.

> Scientists as a class are, indeed, presumed to be atheists.

Nay, I'm a total agnostic, I find certainty ridicules.
(And I know plenty, with a deep religious faith.)

George H.

[Phil Hobbs]

On 03/15/2013 03:06 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:37:36 -0700, cameo wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2013 8:33 PM, hamilton wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2013 9:24 PM, cameo wrote:
>>>> All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the
>>>> "God particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago,
>>>> so why the excitement again?
>>>
>>> The last time was inconclusive.
>>>
>>> This time will be inconclusive as well.
>>>
>>> There is no god.
>>
>> So who started calling it the "God particle" and why? I assume it was a
>> scientist and they are supposed to be ateists, right?
>
> It was the press, and particle physicists just reach for the aspirin
> bottle when they hear it.
>
> Scientists as a class are, indeed, presumed to be atheists. At least
> they are supposed to be so by fundamentalist demagogues. Probably
> because when you're a physicist, it's hard to believe in a big magic
> white guy in the sky who wants us to hate gays.
>

Who believes in that god?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Gib Bogle]

Nobody is supposed to be anything. Most scientists are atheists, in my
experience. Interestingly, biologists seem less likely to be theists
than other scientists.

[rickman]

On 3/15/2013 3:06 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:37:36 -0700, cameo wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2013 8:33 PM, hamilton wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2013 9:24 PM, cameo wrote:
>>>> All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the
>>>> "God particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago,
>>>> so why the excitement again?
>>>
>>> The last time was inconclusive.
>>>
>>> This time will be inconclusive as well.
>>>
>>> There is no god.
>>
>> So who started calling it the "God particle" and why? I assume it was a
>> scientist and they are supposed to be ateists, right?
>
> It was the press, and particle physicists just reach for the aspirin
> bottle when they hear it.
>
> Scientists as a class are, indeed, presumed to be atheists. At least
> they are supposed to be so by fundamentalist demagogues. Probably
> because when you're a physicist, it's hard to believe in a big magic
> white guy in the sky who wants us to hate gays.

It seems to be the press who calls it that, but the term was originally
used in a 1993 book by Leon Lederman. The draft title of the book was,
"The Goddamn Particle" to illustrate the frustrations in trying to "nail
the Higgs". The publisher changed that to just "God" for a couple of
reasons...

BTW, the wikipedia article on the Higgs uses the term, "sobriquet" about
this term. WTF? Do contributors always have to show off how smart they
are? Can't they just *explain* things?

This same article includes mention of the recent announcement and yet
still states it is "uncertain" that the new boson matches the
predictions from the Standard Model. Really? That is not what I'm
reading in the press. Do they have that wrong too?

BTW, there is a god, and he has noodly appendages.

--

Rick

[Bill Sloman]

The "New Scientist" article claimed that the latest round of results
had reduced the the list of possible candidates to two, and they still
needed to work out the spin of the particle they were looking at to
eliminate the possibility that it was a graviton (whatever that might
be) rather than the Higgs boson. It sounded as if a lot of people
would be very surprised - and extremely interested - if it turned out
to be a graviton.

There's discussion of this on the web, but nothing I find particularly
informative.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

In the interim, they lost it in the sofa cushions.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The blinking cursor writes; and having writ, blinks on.

[Bill Sloman]

On Mar 16, 8:32 am, Phil Hobbs

<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> On 03/15/2013 03:06 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:37:36 -0700, cameo wrote:
>
> >> On 3/14/2013 8:33 PM, hamilton wrote:
> >>> On 3/14/2013 9:24 PM, cameo wrote:
> >>>> All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the
> >>>> "God particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago,
> >>>> so why the excitement again?
>
> >>> The last time was inconclusive.
>
> >>> This time will be inconclusive as well.
>
> >>> There is no god.
>
> >> So who started calling it the "God particle" and why? I assume it was a
> >> scientist and they are supposed to be ateists, right?
>
> > It was the press, and particle physicists just reach for the aspirin
> > bottle when they hear it.
>
> > Scientists as a class are, indeed, presumed to be atheists.  At least
> > they are supposed to be so by fundamentalist demagogues.  Probably
> > because when you're a physicist, it's hard to believe in a big magic
> > white guy in the sky who wants us to hate gays.
>
> Who believes in that god?

Tea Party Republicans? Chris Mooney has written another book

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science--Reality/dp/1118094514/ref=la_B001IU4QGA_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363398470&sr=1-1

which seems to write up recent research linking cognitive styles and
political affiliation, which suggested that Republicans generally
aren't into evidence-based decision-making.

I'll buy the book when it comes out in paperback (or maybe download it
onto my Kindle sometime - I like the idea of the Kindle, but still
seem to by buying more stuff on paper).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Phil Hobbs]

So in other words you don't know any either. They don't exist, AFAIK,
except in some fevered imaginations.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203

Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

[rickman]

On 3/15/2013 10:00 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 3/15/2013 9:54 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 8:32 am, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>> On 03/15/2013 03:06 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scientists as a class are, indeed, presumed to be atheists. At least
>>>> they are supposed to be so by fundamentalist demagogues. Probably
>>>> because when you're a physicist, it's hard to believe in a big magic
>>>> white guy in the sky who wants us to hate gays.
>>>
>>> Who believes in that god?
>>
>> Tea Party Republicans? Chris Mooney has written another book
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science--Reality/dp/1118094514/ref=la_B001IU4QGA_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363398470&sr=1-1
>>
>>
>> which seems to write up recent research linking cognitive styles and
>> political affiliation, which suggested that Republicans generally
>> aren't into evidence-based decision-making.
>>
>> I'll buy the book when it comes out in paperback (or maybe download it
>> onto my Kindle sometime - I like the idea of the Kindle, but still
>> seem to by buying more stuff on paper).
>
>
>>
> So in other words you don't know any either. They don't exist, AFAIK,
> except in some fevered imaginations.

Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans? If not, that would explain
why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.

--

Rick

[hamilton]

On 3/15/2013 8:12 PM, rickman wrote:
>
> Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans? If not, that would explain
> why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.
>

Lets call a spade a spade:

The Republicans lost because they wanted to lose.

They (Republicans) know that this country can not live under W's tax cuts.

So they had to give the Democrats the election so they (Democrats) can
do what they (Republicans) could not do.

Raise taxes like Regan did, and save face.
(Regan raised taxes by calling it something else)

Blame the Democrat's for raising taxes, a Republican president did not
do that, saves face.

Now the Republicans want to save face again by giving illegal emigrants
a path to citizenship ( or something close) so they can get elected.

Why start now ??

They have the taxes to now reduced the debt and it was not their
(Republicans) fault.

Life is now good and they (Republicans) did not have to do what they
could not do. (Raise taxes)

H

[cameo]

On 3/15/2013 3:26 PM, Gib Bogle wrote:
>
> Nobody is supposed to be anything. Most scientists are atheists, in my
> experience. Interestingly, biologists seem less likely to be theists
> than other scientists.

I don't know, but I imagine that even those who are believers in a
supreme being might keep it to themselves to avoid being attacked by
atheists. Like many who do not believe in any significant man-made
global warming, but keep quiet about it for fear of intimidation and
grant denials. In any case, I've read somewhere that even Einstein
believed in a creator. At least toward the end of his life.

[cameo]

On 3/15/2013 6:16 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> cameo wrote:
>
>> All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the "God
>> particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago, so why
>> the excitement again?
>
> In the interim, they lost it in the sofa cushions.
>

But maybe they left a copy in the archived files of the b**ing.general
news group. ;-)

[cameo]

On 3/15/2013 6:54 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> Tea Party Republicans? Chris Mooney has written another book
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science--Reality/dp/1118094514/ref=la_B001IU4QGA_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363398470&sr=1-1
>
> which seems to write up recent research linking cognitive styles and
> political affiliation, which suggested that Republicans generally
> aren't into evidence-based decision-making.

Oh well, if there is a book about it, then it must be true. Figures.
My experience finds the arguments of democrats to appeal more to
emotions than to reason.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:38:48 -0600, hamilton <hami...@nothere.com>
wrote:

>On 3/15/2013 8:12 PM, rickman wrote:
>>
>> Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans? If not, that would explain
>> why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.
>>
>
>Lets call a spade a spade:

OK, you're an idiot. Glad you agree.

<moronic babble snipped>

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:15:43 -0700, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid>
wrote:

One word: guns.

[hamilton]

And when they (Republicans) lose in the next election, how would you
explain that ??

H

[Gib Bogle]

It's true that there is a significant overlap between the believers in
gods and the disbelievers in man-made global warming. I don't think
it's for the reason you suggest. ;)
All through history the believers have attacked, even murdered
non-believers, and even today no person who admitted to disbelief could
become president. The reason biologists are not religious is that they
know too much about the complexity of life. Obviously they know that
evolution is written in every page of the book of life, so they are not
going to stand with the know-nothing believers who reject it. They also
appreciate the fact that for all the mind-boggling complexity of life,
even in a single cell, the required complexity of a notional creator is
a different order of infinity.
As for Einstein's belief - forget it. This is a wrong construction put
on his use of metaphorical language.

[UltimatePatriot]

They did poorly because there are so many 100% gullible absolute idiots
of voting age these days.

[Bill Sloman]

On Mar 16, 3:00 pm, Phil Hobbs

<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> On 3/15/2013 9:54 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 8:32 am, Phil Hobbs
> > <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >> On 03/15/2013 03:06 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:37:36 -0700, cameo wrote:
>
> >>>> On 3/14/2013 8:33 PM, hamilton wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/14/2013 9:24 PM, cameo wrote:
> >>>>>> All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the
> >>>>>> "God particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago,
> >>>>>> so why the excitement again?
>
> >>>>> The last time was inconclusive.
>
> >>>>> This time will be inconclusive as well.
>
> >>>>> There is no god.
>
> >>>> So who started calling it the "God particle" and why? I assume it was a
> >>>> scientist and they are supposed to be ateists, right?
>
> >>> It was the press, and particle physicists just reach for the aspirin
> >>> bottle when they hear it.
>
> >>> Scientists as a class are, indeed, presumed to be atheists.  At least
> >>> they are supposed to be so by fundamentalist demagogues.  Probably
> >>> because when you're a physicist, it's hard to believe in a big magic
> >>> white guy in the sky who wants us to hate gays.
>
> >> Who believes in that god?
>
> > Tea Party Republicans? Chris Mooney has written another book
>

> >http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science--Reality/dp/11...

>
> > which seems to write up recent research linking cognitive styles and
> > political affiliation, which suggested that Republicans generally
> > aren't into evidence-based decision-making.
>
> > I'll buy the book when it comes out in paperback (or maybe download it
> > onto my Kindle sometime - I like the idea of the Kindle, but still
> > seem to by buying more stuff on paper).
>
> So in other words you don't know any either.  They don't exist, AFAIK,
> except in some fevered imaginations.

There really are people around who believe that gays are evil, rather
than different. I don't know any personally - pretty much all of my
friends are what Americans call college-educated liberals who had to
give up that idea when they first went to college - graduates of Bob
Jones University don't really qualify as college educated and liberal.

My evidence the existence of a gays-are-evil brigade is based what
they write in the "letters to the editor" sections of the newspapers
that I read, and on the abuse they yell at demonstrations that I see
on television.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Gib Bogle]

Who is more likely to reject evolution, a Democratic or a Republican
politician?

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:36:06 -0600, hamilton <hami...@nothere.com>

wrote:

>On 3/15/2013 9:30 PM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:38:48 -0600, hamilton <hami...@nothere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/15/2013 8:12 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans? If not, that would explain
>>>> why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lets call a spade a spade:
>>
>> OK, you're an idiot. Glad you agree.
>>
>> <moronic babble snipped>
>>
>And when they (Republicans) lose in the next election, how would you
>explain that ??

You don't need to supply any more proof. You're an idiot. Everyone's
already got the picture.

[Bill Sloman]

Check the evidence more carefully. Einstein really liked Spinoza's
thinking, and any kind of separate creator doesn't fit into that world-
view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

Claiming that prominent non-theists came around to a theistic point of
view is a popular hobby amongst dim theists. Any such claim should be
examined in detail - every one I've seen has turned out to be either a
straightforward lie, or wishful thinking.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:38:48 -0600, hamilton <hami...@nothere.com>
wrote:

>On 3/15/2013 8:12 PM, rickman wrote:
>>
>> Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans? If not, that would explain
>> why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.
>>
>
>Lets call a spade a spade:

OK... YOU are goddamned retard.

>
>The Republicans lost because they wanted to lose.

A retarded crack like that is PROOF that YOU are a goddamned retard.

>They (Republicans) know that this country can not live under W's tax cuts.

You're a goddamned idiot. We have ENOUGH fucking taxes, you retarded
piece of SHIT!!!

>So they had to give the Democrats the election so they (Democrats) can
>do what they (Republicans) could not do.

You are truly dumber than dogshit boy.

>Raise taxes like Regan did, and save face.

Put idiots like you in a lye pit. That will cut costs.

>(Regan raised taxes by calling it something else)

There is no calling the retard you are anything else but a total
fucking retard.

>
>Blame the Democrat's for raising taxes, a Republican president did not
>do that, saves face.

You are truly a pathetic, immature little nit-wit.

>Now the Republicans want to save face again by giving illegal emigrants
>a path to citizenship ( or something close) so they can get elected.

You're an idiot. Almost criminally so.

>Why start now ??

Beatting you the fuck up? Why didn't we start years ago, when you
starting spewing stupid horseshit like this in these groups.

>They have the taxes to now reduced the debt and it was not their
>(Republicans) fault.

You're an idiot. Your grasp of politics is less than nil.

>Life is now good and they (Republicans) did not have to do what they
>could not do. (Raise taxes)

If you think the mess this nation is in "is now good", you are an even
bigger idiot than your previous absolutely retarded remarks made you
look.

[Chairman Meow]

I cannot believe that you guys are so devoid of actual historical
facts. Einstein believed in god.

Did Gib go round asking all those folks? NO! That is a good way to
get shitcanned from a job. So I KNOW the retarded fuck saying "in my
experience" really means:

"I have been guessing about the beliefs of any colleagues I may have
ever had in every case."

Not very fucking scientific at all, if you ask me. And these days,
even more folks keep their stance to themselves than ever before.

[Jamie]

Yes, 100% correct!

Jamie

[Jamie]

And what happens when they run out of working people, people that
actually want to work that pays these taxes?



Jamie

[Jamie]

It's all about keeping the money flowing for science that is beyond
them or a direction they have picked that they know will lead them to no
where.

A fool and their money will serve many scientist as long as the
general community remain ignorant enough to be blind sided, much like
the democratic party's method of running the country.

I think you fall into that community, btw.

Jamie

[Jeroen]

They know about all the silly errors in living things. :-)
Some of them are hilarious.

Jeroen Belleman

[rickman]

On 3/16/2013 12:32 PM, Jamie wrote:
>
> And what happens when they run out of working people, people that
> actually want to work that pays these taxes?

You've been reading your Ayn Rand books again, haven't you?

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 3/16/2013 12:38 PM, Jamie wrote:
> It's all about keeping the money flowing for science that is beyond them
> or a direction they have picked that they know will lead them to no where.
>
> A fool and their money will serve many scientist as long as the general
> community remain ignorant enough to be blind sided, much like
> the democratic party's method of running the country.
>
> I think you fall into that community, btw.

What exactly are you going on about? You think science is a waste of
time and money? Really???

--

Rick

[cameo]

On 3/15/2013 8:51 PM, UltimatePatriot wrote:

> They did poorly because there are so many 100% gullible absolute idiots
> of voting age these days.
>

It's nothing that couldn't be fixed by allowing only taxpayers to vote.
Just like in any organizations where only those have a say who paid
their dues.

[cameo]

On 3/15/2013 8:56 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

> There really are people around who believe that gays are evil, rather
> than different. I don't know any personally - pretty much all of my
> friends are what Americans call college-educated liberals who had to
> give up that idea when they first went to college - graduates of Bob
> Jones University don't really qualify as college educated and liberal.
>
> My evidence the existence of a gays-are-evil brigade is based what
> they write in the "letters to the editor" sections of the newspapers
> that I read, and on the abuse they yell at demonstrations that I see
> on television.

Where is your obsession with the gay subject coming from? You keep
dragging it in regardless what the subject is. Get a life, man!

[cameo]

On 3/16/2013 5:00 AM, Chairman Meow wrote:
> I cannot believe that you guys are so devoid of actual historical
> facts. Einstein believed in god.
>
> Did Gib go round asking all those folks? NO! That is a good way to
> get shitcanned from a job. So I KNOW the retarded fuck saying "in my
> experience" really means:
>
> "I have been guessing about the beliefs of any colleagues I may have
> ever had in every case."
>
> Not very fucking scientific at all, if you ask me. And these days,
> even more folks keep their stance to themselves than ever before.
>

Of course they do. That's what political correctness is about. Just like
in the former communist countries where people were forced to chant the
dogma in public and were believing something entirely different that
they could share only with family and close friends. Otherwise they
would have lost their job or worse. This is always the case where
leftists gain power. No tolerance for opposing views.

[rickman]

No, that's just called separating work from politics. Keep your
politics to yourself and don't provoke your coworkers. If this group is
any sign, there is no such thing as "political correctness". I don't
see where anyone is holding back on anything!

--

Rick

[Jamie]

That will never happen, if it did, most of those democrats would be
out looking for work.. Maybe picking eggs or shoveling manure.?

Jamie

[Jamie]

Ok, so you tell me where does the funds come from. You seem
to have a problem with the numbers, from what I can see.

It appears you are the one that has been living in the shadows
or maybe you are promoting people to not work? Now that would be
nice wouldn't. we can see the system collapse as soon as everyone
puts down the keys to the farm equipment, stop feeding the food
animals etc. why should they? The GOV will just pay you from what?
who knows..

There are free loaders and those that actually need help and can not
work due to years of SSI contributions for retirement or medical
reasons. Remove the free loaders and you'll see what happens. Sorry if
we don't here from you.

This country is becoming an ignorant race of the dumb asses and people
like yourself promotes it. When there is no more, who will be screaming at?

Bird feeder scenario..

Jamie

[rickman]

Close, but in "Atlas Shrugged" the walk offs started with the people at
the top, remember? I believe one of the first was Hank Rearden. "Who
is John Galt?"

I would like to discuss this with you, but I actually can't make sense
of some of your writing. "can not work due to years of SSI
contributions for retirement or medical reasons" What does this
mean??? There are people who can't work because they have contributed
to SSI?

--

Rick

[Bill Sloman]

On Mar 17, 7:04 am, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:
> On 3/15/2013 8:56 PM,BillSlomanwrote:

>
> > There really are people around who believe that gays are evil, rather
> > than different. I don't know any personally - pretty much all of my
> > friends are what Americans call college-educated liberals who had to
> > give up that idea when they first went to college - graduates of Bob
> > Jones University don't really qualify as college educated and liberal.
>
> > My evidence the existence of a gays-are-evil brigade is based what
> > they write in the "letters to the editor" sections of the newspapers
> > that I read, and on the abuse they yell at demonstrations that I see
> > on television.
>
> Where is your obsession with the gay subject coming from?

In thos particular case, from Tim Wescott's line " it's hard to

believe in a big magic
white guy in the sky who wants us to hate gays."

>You keep dragging it in regardless what the subject is.

Scarcely.

> Get a life, man!

Exercise your reading skills a little harder.

--
Bill Sloman. Sydmey

[Bill Sloman]

On Mar 17, 7:52 am, Jamie

The US apparently now has a Gini coefficient of 0.47, higher than
China or Russia. It's not the government who is grabbing all the
money, but the rich. Why should the 99% work harder and more
productively, if all that their efforts buy is more money for the 1%?

Look at Germany, where better social securty and and more money spent
on education leaves the Gini coefficient at around 0,283.

Their society isn't as egalitarian as Sweden, Denmark or Norway, where
the Gini coefficient is down to 0.25, but their economy is a bit
healthier, not that the other three are doing badly.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[amdx]

On 3/15/2013 9:38 PM, hamilton wrote:
> On 3/15/2013 8:12 PM, rickman wrote:
>>
>> Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans? If not, that would explain
>> why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.
>>
>
> Lets call a spade a spade:
>
> The Republicans lost because they wanted to lose.
>
> They (Republicans) know that this country can not live under W's tax cuts.
>
> So they had to give the Democrats the election so they (Democrats) can
> do what they (Republicans) could not do.
>
> Raise taxes like Regan did, and save face.
> (Regan raised taxes by calling it something else)
>
> Blame the Democrat's for raising taxes, a Republican president did not
> do that, saves face.
>
> Now the Republicans want to save face again by giving illegal emigrants
> a path to citizenship ( or something close) so they can get elected.
>
> Why start now ??
>
> They have the taxes to now reduced the debt and it was not their
> (Republicans) fault.
>
> Life is now good and they (Republicans) did not have to do what they
> could not do. (Raise taxes)
>
> H
>

The preferable method would be to live on the $2.47 Trillion in taxes
Americans paid in 2012. One way to do that is to cut the number of
citizens getting a check from the government.
This article says 96% of Americans have got a government check.

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/26/do-96-percent-of-americans-receive-government-benefits/

It does include the mortgage tax deduction as a check, which I don't
agree with. Your paying in less taxes not getting a check. But, I
will happily give up the mortgage deduction for a balanced budget!
Easy for me, since I haven't used one for 19 years.
Mikek

BTW did you you say it was Bush's fault?

[amdx]

If that happens I'll just have to agree;
1. The majority of Americans want more from the government than they pay in.
2. They don't understand the severity of the U.S. debt.
3. The majority are mind numbed zombies.
4. The great American experiment is over. :-(
5. I won't know whether to enjoy my retirement or pass the nestegg
on, so my kids can live a decent life.
Mikek

It was quite a ride from 1776 to the 1950s.

[Jamie]

It's as clear as the nose on your face, if you have one. Those that
contributed to SSI or have some sort of medical issue that really does
prevent them to contribute, should be allowed to share in
the funds that are put there. That should be a very small percentage
compared to those contributing if you think about it.

Now of course to put into SSI, you must legally work. That means
contributions to the system... Legals that have a mishap, born with
defects that prevent them from being part of the working society should
be able to appreciate the services the gov has to offer. This includes
those that are ready for retirement that have contributed.

Any one else better have a family member or some dumb person that
will pay their way. I see a lot this happening with particular ethnic
groups.

What really bothers me is a person on some sort of social services
while another freeloader that refuses to work moves in and stills
the services from them. This usually works if the one with money has a
hard time finding a sole mate, they don't get too picky. Some are willing
to take physical abuse from the free loader and tell every one that was
just for love! Desperation can sprout a lot of dumb asses.


Jamie

[josephkk]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:37:36 -0700, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:

>On 3/14/2013 8:33 PM, hamilton wrote:
>> On 3/14/2013 9:24 PM, cameo wrote:
>>> All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the "God
>>> particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago, so why
>>> the excitement again?
>>
>> The last time was inconclusive.
>>
>> This time will be inconclusive as well.
>>
>> There is no god.
>
>So who started calling it the "God particle" and why? I assume it was a
>scientist and they are supposed to be ateists, right?

What is really a scream when i hear them make that claim; is that out of
all the scientists that i have met every one practices some religion.

?-)

[rickman]

On 3/16/2013 7:10 PM, Jamie wrote:
>>
> It's as clear as the nose on your face, if you have one. Those that
> contributed to SSI or have some sort of medical issue that really does
> prevent them to contribute, should be allowed to share in
> the funds that are put there. That should be a very small percentage
> compared to those contributing if you think about it.
>
> Now of course to put into SSI, you must legally work. That means
> contributions to the system... Legals that have a mishap, born with
> defects that prevent them from being part of the working society should
> be able to appreciate the services the gov has to offer. This includes
> those that are ready for retirement that have contributed.
>
> Any one else better have a family member or some dumb person that
> will pay their way. I see a lot this happening with particular ethnic
> groups.
>
> What really bothers me is a person on some sort of social services while
> another freeloader that refuses to work moves in and stills
> the services from them. This usually works if the one with money has a
> hard time finding a sole mate, they don't get too picky. Some are willing
> to take physical abuse from the free loader and tell every one that was
> just for love! Desperation can sprout a lot of dumb asses.
>
>
> Jamie

Jamie, I literally don't know how to reply to this, on so many levels.

--

Rick

[Jamie]

NP/

Jamie

[Jamie]

Yeah, they've learned that it's a good tax write off. :)

Jamie

[josephkk]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:29:49 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> This country is becoming an ignorant race of the dumb asses and people
>> like yourself promotes it. When there is no more, who will be screaming at?
>>
>> Bird feeder scenario..
>
>Close, but in "Atlas Shrugged" the walk offs started with the people at
>the top, remember? I believe one of the first was Hank Rearden. "Who
>is John Galt?"

The first walk away was John Galt. Century Motors and all that. Followed
shortly by Ragnar Danneksjold. John had a thriving community before
Reardon started to learn the truth. Dagney Taggart visited for quite some
time and went back gun in hand.

?-)

[cameo]

On 3/16/2013 11:19 AM, rickman wrote:
> No, that's just called separating work from politics. Keep your
> politics to yourself and don't provoke your coworkers.

If only the PC crowd would also keep their politics to themselves.

> If this group is
> any sign, there is no such thing as "political correctness". I don't
> see where anyone is holding back on anything!
>

It's simple: you guys can't retaliate here.

[cameo]

On 3/16/2013 3:01 PM, josephkk wrote:

> What is really a scream when i hear them make that claim; is that out of
> all the scientists that i have met every one practices some religion.
>
> ?-)

What makes me wonder is how so many scientists who can see "intelligent
design" when they see a bunch of big stones forming a circle in
Stonehenge, but could not see it in the amazing laws of nature, and
really, the Universe.

[k...@attt.bizz]

"Suck all the teat you want - we'll print more." Haven't you heard,
the government's money is "infinite".

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:29:20 -0500, amdx <am...@knologynotthis.net>
wrote:

But, but, but, it's the government's money. You're allowed to keep
what they say you can. After all, you didn't earn it! You drove to
work, didn't you?

> Mikek
>
>BTW did you you say it was Bush's fault?

It's *always* implied in everything a lefty says.

[k...@attt.bizz]

s/eggs/nose and you've just described what they do now.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:04:41 -0700, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid>
wrote:

Ignore Slowman. He fell off the wagon, again.

[Jamie]

Better start keeping tabs on the forests! If we run out, we can also
stay warm with that money.. I hear they have the bleaching process down
good, we can also use it for charmin.!

Jamie

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

So, are we to expect to see you in the news, running over storage sheds
over at the Home Depot?

I think those nice young men in their clean white coats should come
take you away.

[Jamie]

I'll have to wait in line, you'll be up front holding it up!

Jamie

[amdx]

>
> But, but, but, it's the government's money. You're allowed to keep
> what they say you can. After all, you didn't earn it! You drove to
> work, didn't you?
>

I wasn't raised that way, and keep forgetting the new rules!
Sorry, Mikek

[Michael A. Terrell]

Hs wife dresses him funny.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

[Greegor]

Sloman wrote:
> There really are people around who believe that gays are evil, rather
> than different. I don't know any personally - pretty much all of my
> friends are what Americans call college-educated liberals who had to
> give up that idea when they first went to college - graduates of Bob
> Jones University don't really qualify as college educated and liberal.
>
> My evidence the existence of a gays-are-evil brigade is based what
> they write in the "letters to the editor" sections of the newspapers
> that I read, and on the abuse they yell at demonstrations that I see
> on television.

Are you obsessed with gays?

[John Devereux]

I don't recall much about the subject from him in the past. He
contributed to an already ongoing "discussion" involving them.

As did you and the others claiming an "obsession". Perhaps you should
look in the mirror.

--

John Devereux

[Greegor]

> > Sloman wrote:
> >> There really are people around who believe that gays are evil, rather
> >> than different. I don't know any personally - pretty much all of my
> >> friends are what Americans call college-educated liberals who had to
> >> give up that idea when they first went to college - graduates of Bob
> >> Jones University don't really qualify as college educated and liberal.
>
> >> My evidence the existence of a gays-are-evil brigade is based what
> >> they write in the "letters to the editor" sections of the newspapers
> >> that I read, and on the abuse they yell at demonstrations that I see
> >> on television.

G > Are you obsessed with gays?

John Devereux wrote

> I don't recall much about the subject from him in the past. He
> contributed to an already ongoing "discussion" involving them.

Sloman's comments seem to be quite vitriolic about
groups who don't look well upon gays.

JD > As did you and the others claiming an "obsession".
JD > Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

Sloman put the "raging" in liberalism.

[cameo]

Maybe he is in the closet?

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Mar 15, 10:38 pm, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 3/15/2013 8:12 PM, rickman wrote:
>
>
>
> > Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans?  If not, that would explain
> > why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.
>
> Lets call a spade a spade:
>
> The Republicans lost because they wanted to lose.
>
> They (Republicans) know that this country can not live under W's tax cuts.

Sure we can, we're just spending too much. Spending under Clinton
averaged 19.6pct of GDP. Under Obama, 24.4 pct.

That the problem.

> So they had to give the Democrats the election so they (Democrats) can
> do what they (Republicans) could not do.
>
> Raise taxes like Regan did, and save face.
> (Regan raised taxes by calling it something else)

The Republicans offered (and continue to offer) to cut out deductions,
and broaden the base. Paul Ryan was touting that last weekend.
Obama, the ideologue, insists on higher marginal rates.

> Blame the Democrat's for raising taxes, a Republican president did not
> do that, saves face.
>
> Now the Republicans want to save face again by giving illegal emigrants
> a path to citizenship ( or something close) so they can get elected.
>
> Why start now ??
>
> They have the taxes to now reduced the debt and it was not their
> (Republicans) fault.

Nope. The Dems raised taxes $60B this last round, plus a bunch of
taxes in Obamacare (about $100B, IIRC). The deficit's over a trillion
on a cash basis. Over SEVEN trillion if you count incurred
liabilities (i.e. future promises made) last year.

$160B a year? That's not even enough to pay for Obamacare, much less
the new spending they still want (in their new budget).

> Life is now good and they (Republicans) did not have to do what they
> could not do. (Raise taxes)
>
> H

For all their bumbling, Republicans have held federal spending roughly
flat since the Tea Party elections of 2010.

With Sylvester the Sequester, they've checked spending growth again.
That's good for the economy, and it's already creating optimism among
business and investors--it's been the buzz of late.

If we actually balanced our books, America would soar.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[cameo]

On 3/18/2013 2:31 PM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Nope. The Dems raised taxes $60B this last round, plus a bunch of
> taxes in Obamacare (about $100B, IIRC). The deficit's over a trillion
> on a cash basis. Over SEVEN trillion if you count incurred
> liabilities (i.e. future promises made) last year.
>
> $160B a year? That's not even enough to pay for Obamacare, much less
> the new spending they still want (in their new budget).

That's what Obama calls a "balanced" approach. LOL

>
> With Sylvester the Sequester, they've checked spending growth again.
> That's good for the economy, and it's already creating optimism among
> business and investors--it's been the buzz of late.

Just wait till Obama comes with up something for our 401K balances like
what EU came up with Cyprus savings accounts. Out of fairness, of course.

[Gib Bogle]

On 17/03/2013 1:00 a.m., Chairman Meow wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:04:56 -0700, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 3/15/2013 3:26 PM, Gib Bogle wrote:
>>>
>>> Nobody is supposed to be anything. Most scientists are atheists, in my
>>> experience. Interestingly, biologists seem less likely to be theists
>>> than other scientists.
>>
>> I don't know, but I imagine that even those who are believers in a
>> supreme being might keep it to themselves to avoid being attacked by
>> atheists. Like many who do not believe in any significant man-made
>> global warming, but keep quiet about it for fear of intimidation and
>> grant denials. In any case, I've read somewhere that even Einstein
>> believed in a creator. At least toward the end of his life.
>
>
> I cannot believe that you guys are so devoid of actual historical
> facts. Einstein believed in god.
>
> Did Gib go round asking all those folks? NO! That is a good way to
> get shitcanned from a job. So I KNOW the retarded fuck saying "in my
> experience" really means:
>
> "I have been guessing about the beliefs of any colleagues I may have
> ever had in every case."
>
> Not very fucking scientific at all, if you ask me. And these days,
> even more folks keep their stance to themselves than ever before.
>

After centuries during which admitting non-belief could get you tortured
and/or killed, the believers are now very upset that non-believers are
finally free to speak their minds. It's a sick joke.

[rickman]

*You* guys? Who exactly are you lumping me with?

--

Rick

[Gib Bogle]

On 17/03/2013 7:00 a.m., rickman wrote:
> On 3/16/2013 12:38 PM, Jamie wrote:
>> It's all about keeping the money flowing for science that is beyond them
>> or a direction they have picked that they know will lead them to no
>> where.
>>
>> A fool and their money will serve many scientist as long as the general
>> community remain ignorant enough to be blind sided, much like
>> the democratic party's method of running the country.
>>
>> I think you fall into that community, btw.
>
> What exactly are you going on about? You think science is a waste of
> time and money? Really???
>

He is a bona fide duckwit.

[Gib Bogle]

On 17/03/2013 5:45 a.m., Jeroen wrote:

>> Nobody is supposed to be anything. Most scientists are atheists, in my
>> experience. Interestingly, biologists seem less likely to be theists
>> than other scientists.
>

> They know about all the silly errors in living things. :-)
> Some of them are hilarious.
>
> Jeroen Belleman
>

:) They just know too much about the subject.

[Greegor]

Sloman wrote:
BS > There really are people around who believe that
BS > gays are evil, rather than different. I don't know
BS > any personally - pretty much all of my friends are
BS > what Americans call college-educated liberals
BS > who had to give up that idea when they first went
BS > to college - graduates of Bob Jones University
BS > don't really qualify as college educated and liberal.
BS >
BS > My evidence the existence of a gays-are-evil
BS > brigade is based what they write in the
BS > "letters to the editor" sections of the newspapers
BS > that I read, and on the abuse they yell at
BS > demonstrations that I see on television.

G > Are you obsessed with gays?

cameo > Maybe he is in the closet?

I think Sloman's just a RAGING liberal towing
the party line on emotional issues listed as
eligible for "liberal brownie points".

[josephkk]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:28:52 -0500, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_v...@charter.net> wrote:

Naw. Two problems: 1) The new bills are way too stiff and too slick after
the intaglio printing process. 2) Most of the new money is virtual,
unless you can use virtual paper for the task is won't work at all.

?-)

[Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers]

Jeez... you are both utter idiots.

Your fucktarded attempts at humor are even worse than Terrell's.

Now that is a feat!

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

cameo wrote:

> On 3/15/2013 6:16 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>> cameo wrote:
>>
>>> All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the "God
>>> particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago, so why
>>> the excitement again?
>>
>> In the interim, they lost it in the sofa cushions.
>>
> But maybe they left a copy in the archived files of the b**ing.general
> news group. ;-)

I doubt it. Anyway, we've all moved to PPRuNe.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not mold, findle or sputilate.

[cameo]

On 3/19/2013 8:26 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> I doubt it. Anyway, we've all moved to PPRuNe.
>

So what about many of us who are ground bound?

[Bill Sloman]

You shouldn't be rude about ducks.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

They put up with fans and people in various other parts of the business.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------

Applying information technology is simply finding the right wrench
to pound in the correct screw.

[cameo]

On 3/20/2013 7:53 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> They put up with fans and people in various other parts of the business.
>

Unfortunately I don't see any section there that is devoted to
discussion of our former company by employees like in that old internal NG.

[Greegor]

On Mar 15, 6:02 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, there is a god, and he has noodly appendages.

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/d/dc/Fsm.jpg

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:57:03 PM UTC-4, Gib Bogle wrote:
> On 16/03/2013 4:15 p.m., cameo wrote:

> > Oh well, if there is a book about it, then it must be true. Figures.
> > My experience finds the arguments of democrats to appeal more to
> > emotions than to reason.
> >
>
>
> Who is more likely to reject evolution, a Democratic or a Republican
> politician?

Democrats, for sure. By seeking totalitarian central control, they reject the evolution of human choices, possibility, and behavior, as well as the diversity those things depend on.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Bill Sloman]

Pity about the facts. Republicans are less likey than Democrats to
accept the reality of evolution. But James Arthur has a typically
Republican tendency to ignore any evidence that doesn't suit his
argument.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[cameo]

On 3/25/2013 11:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> Pity about the facts. Republicans are less likey than Democrats to
> accept the reality of evolution. But James Arthur has a typically
> Republican tendency to ignore any evidence that doesn't suit his
> argument.
>
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx

Even if it's so, what does it matter in practical terms? No human living
now or in the past ever vitnessed evolution of species from one to
another, so what does it matter what we believe about it? It's no
different than believing in extra-terrestial beings. Some believe in
their existence, some don't. Your views about it make no difference and
one view does not make it superior over the other.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Mar 25, 2:31 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 6:30 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:57:03 PM UTC-4, Gib Bogle wrote:
> > > On 16/03/2013 4:15 p.m., cameo wrote:
> > > > Oh well, if there is a book about it, then it must be true. Figures.
> > > > My experience finds the arguments of democrats to appeal more to
> > > > emotions than to reason.
>
> > > Who is more likely to reject evolution, a Democratic or a Republican
> > > politician?
>
> > Democrats, for sure.  By seeking totalitarian central control, they reject the evolution of human choices, possibility, and behavior, as well as the diversity those things depend on.
>
> Pity about the facts. Republicans are less likey than Democrats to
> accept the reality of evolution. But James Arthur has a typically
> Republican tendency to ignore any evidence that doesn't suit his
> argument.

No, you miss the point.

Show me a Democrat these days that believes in free markets, natural
selection of products, businesses, employers, etc., that they evolve
into anything good, or respond to external selective pressures.

When it comes to human potential, they don't believe individuals
making selections in their own interest evolves a brighter future for
same, or that they can be trusted to do so. Progs disparage the idea
that it does / they could as "social Darwinism" as a way of rejecting
it.

So, to the extent most Democrats believe in natural selection, in
everyday life they deny it, think it's bad, and want to stop it.

Economically, they place their faith in divine intervention.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[rickman]

On 3/25/2013 3:26 PM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:31 pm, Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 6:30 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:57:03 PM UTC-4, Gib Bogle wrote:
>>>> On 16/03/2013 4:15 p.m., cameo wrote:
>>>>> Oh well, if there is a book about it, then it must be true. Figures.
>>>>> My experience finds the arguments of democrats to appeal more to
>>>>> emotions than to reason.
>>
>>>> Who is more likely to reject evolution, a Democratic or a Republican
>>>> politician?
>>
>>> Democrats, for sure. By seeking totalitarian central control, they reject the evolution of human choices, possibility, and behavior, as well as the diversity those things depend on.
>>
>> Pity about the facts. Republicans are less likey than Democrats to
>> accept the reality of evolution. But James Arthur has a typically
>> Republican tendency to ignore any evidence that doesn't suit his
>> argument.
>
> No, you miss the point.
>
> Show me a Democrat these days that believes in free markets, natural
> selection of products, businesses, employers, etc., that they evolve
> into anything good, or respond to external selective pressures.

Hi, I'm here!

> When it comes to human potential, they don't believe individuals
> making selections in their own interest evolves a brighter future for
> same, or that they can be trusted to do so. Progs disparage the idea
> that it does / they could as "social Darwinism" as a way of rejecting
> it.

How do you know what I believe? Just from the label "Democrat" you can
infer all that?

> So, to the extent most Democrats believe in natural selection, in
> everyday life they deny it, think it's bad, and want to stop it.
>
> Economically, they place their faith in divine intervention.

I think I am starting to agree with something you said in an another post.

--

Rick

[George Herold]

On Mar 25, 3:26 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:31 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 6:30 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:57:03 PM UTC-4, Gib Bogle wrote:
> > > > On 16/03/2013 4:15 p.m., cameo wrote:
> > > > > Oh well, if there is a book about it, then it must be true. Figures.
> > > > > My experience finds the arguments of democrats to appeal more to
> > > > > emotions than to reason.
>
> > > > Who is more likely to reject evolution, a Democratic or a Republican
> > > > politician?
>
> > > Democrats, for sure.  By seeking totalitarian central control, they reject the evolution of human choices, possibility, and behavior, as well as the diversity those things depend on.
>
> > Pity about the facts. Republicans are less likey than Democrats to
> > accept the reality of evolution. But James Arthur has a typically
> > Republican tendency to ignore any evidence that doesn't suit his
> > argument.
>
> No, you miss the point.
>

> Show me a Democrat

'meekly raises hand'

Hi James,
I'm mostly a 'social' democrat, that borders on libertarian,
Financially, I'm more conservative.
(debt, bad...)

these days that believes in free markets, natural
> selection of products, businesses, employers, etc., that they evolve
> into anything good, or respond to external selective pressures.
>

Well I don't want unbridled capitalism.
(to pick a topic close to home.)
I'd like to see hydro-fracturing of gas here in upstate NY.
But I want some regulations, Drilling companies should carry insurance
for the inevitable accident.

> When it comes to human potential, they don't believe individuals
> making selections in their own interest evolves a brighter future for
> same, or that they can be trusted to do so.  Progs disparage the idea
> that it does / they could as "social Darwinism" as a way of rejecting
> it.

We need to encourage work. The place I work is in a poor part of
town,
(partly for tax reasons.) Going to work I drive by guys coming out of
mini-marts with bottles in paper bags... It's such a waste of people!
Is it wrong for me to belive that most of these people would be
happier as productive parts of society?

George H.

>
> So, to the extent most Democrats believe in natural selection, in
> everyday life they deny it, think it's bad, and want to stop it.
>
> Economically, they place their faith in divine intervention.
>
> --
> Cheers,

> James Arthur- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Bill Sloman]

On Mar 26, 7:57 am, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:
> On 3/25/2013 11:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> > Pity about the facts. Republicans are less likey than Democrats to
> > accept the reality of evolution. But James Arthur has a typically
> > Republican tendency to ignore any evidence that doesn't suit his
> > argument.
>

> >http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-ev...

>
> Even if it's so, what does it matter in practical terms? No human living
> now or in the past ever vitnessed evolution of species from one to
> another, so what does it matter what we believe about it?

You haven't been paying attention. Multiple drug resistant strains of
tuberculosis have evolved within living memory.
They may not represent a new speices, but they do represent a real
nuisance.

> It's no different than believing in extra-terrestial beings.

Not exactly. Fossils exist. Extra-terrestrial beings are purely
hypothetical.

> Some believe in their existence, some don't. Your views about it make no difference and
> one view does not make it superior over the other.

A view that includes fossils is almost certainly superior to one that
doesn't. The more you know about the past, the more reliably you can
predict the future. those that don't know history are condemned to
repeat it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

On Mar 26, 8:26 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:31 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 26, 6:30 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:57:03 PM UTC-4, Gib Bogle wrote:
> > > > On 16/03/2013 4:15 p.m., cameo wrote:
> > > > > Oh well, if there is a book about it, then it must be true. Figures.
> > > > > My experience finds the arguments of democrats to appeal more to
> > > > > emotions than to reason.
>
> > > > Who is more likely to reject evolution, a Democratic or a Republican
> > > > politician?
>
> > > Democrats, for sure.  By seeking totalitarian central control, they reject the evolution of human choices, possibility, and behavior, as well as the diversity those things depend on.
>
> > Pity about the facts. Republicans are less likey than Democrats to
> > accept the reality of evolution. But James Arthur has a typically
> > Republican tendency to ignore any evidence that doesn't suit his
> > argument.
>
> No, you miss the point.

Not really. You want to carry on about what you think that Democrats
ought to believe, and in the process you've ignored what they actually
do believe.

> Show me a Democrat these days that believes in free markets, natural
> selection of products, businesses, employers, etc., that they evolve
> into anything good, or respond to external selective pressures.

I certainly believe that, and I'd probably vote Democrat if I had a
vote in the US. I don't believe that it happens in every situation,
and I do believe that the free market has to be regulated and adjusted
so that it actually does happen most of the time.

> When it comes to human potential, they don't believe individuals
> making selections in their own interest evolves a brighter future for
> same, or that they can be trusted to do so.  Progs disparage the idea
> that it does / they could as "social Darwinism" as a way of rejecting
> it.

Social Darwinists think that it happens all the time, in every
situation and don't see the necessity for measures like anti-trust
legislation, anti-child-labour laws and the like. This is an over-
simplification.

> So, to the extent most Democrats believe in natural selection, in
> everyday life they deny it, think it's bad, and want to stop it.

A fatuous extrapolation.

> Economically, they place their faith in divine intervention.

In reality, they place their faith in interactions that you can't be
bothered to comprehend. You ought to be bright enough to see the
necessity for anti-trust legislation, child-labour laws and so forth,
but you prefer to keep the debate confined to zippy one-liners.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[cameo]

On 3/26/2013 1:14 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> You haven't been paying attention. Multiple drug resistant strains of
> tuberculosis have evolved within living memory.
> They may not represent a new speices, but they do represent a real
> nuisance.

You are the one not paying attention. I didn't argue about the existence
of evolution. I just asked what difference does it make to us now what
somebody believes about it if that happens over millions of years where
any generation of humans cannot even affect, witness or observe it. The
hybrids we "engineered" cannot reproduce themselves, so they are a
dead-end in the evolution. We could not even affect the mutation of
viruses or bacteria.

>> It's no different than believing in extra-terrestial beings.
>
> Not exactly. Fossils exist. Extra-terrestrial beings are purely
> hypothetical.

Except that we cannot prove definitely that those fossils really evolved
from one to another or were separate species to begin with where the
ones with less ability to adapt to changing environment died out and the
others survived. Heck, not long ago the common scientific view was that
humans evolved from monkeys or apes. Now the common view is that we
represent separate evolutionary chains. Who knows what scientist will
say 10 year from now?

> A view that includes fossils is almost certainly superior to one that
> doesn't.

Certainly some fossils on this NG might think that.

> The more you know about the past, the more reliably you can
> predict the future. those that don't know history are condemned to
> repeat it.

More banality from our resident fossil ...

[John Devereux]

cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> writes:

> On 3/26/2013 1:14 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> You haven't been paying attention. Multiple drug resistant strains of
>> tuberculosis have evolved within living memory.
>> They may not represent a new speices, but they do represent a real
>> nuisance.
>
> You are the one not paying attention. I didn't argue about the
> existence of evolution. I just asked what difference does it make to
> us now what somebody believes about it if that happens over millions
> of years where any generation of humans cannot even affect, witness or
> observe it. The hybrids we "engineered" cannot reproduce themselves,
> so they are a dead-end in the evolution. We could not even affect the
> mutation of viruses or bacteria.

You are wrong. Speciation has been observed in action. Evolution has
been observed in action, including flu and tuberculosis etc. "engineered
hybrids" can of course indeed reproduce.

"what difference does it make"? I could argue that there is the danger
that, if too many people think like you do, some will get into positions
of power and make dangerous decisions. Someone, somewhere will decide
that diseases cannot evolve so what is the point of funding flu vaccines
development predicated on this very assumption?

But really it is just good to know what is true, to do our best to find
out what is actually true and what is not.

You know, science instead of wilful ignorance.

>>> It's no different than believing in extra-terrestial beings.
>>
>> Not exactly. Fossils exist. Extra-terrestrial beings are purely
>> hypothetical.
>
> Except that we cannot prove definitely that those fossils really
> evolved from one to another or were separate species to begin with
> where the ones with less ability to adapt to changing environment died
> out and the others survived. Heck, not long ago the common scientific
> view was that humans evolved from monkeys or apes. Now the common view
> is that we represent separate evolutionary chains. Who knows what
> scientist will say 10 year from now?
>
>> A view that includes fossils is almost certainly superior to one that
>> doesn't.
>
> Certainly some fossils on this NG might think that.
>
>> The more you know about the past, the more reliably you can
>> predict the future. those that don't know history are condemned to
>> repeat it.
>
> More banality from our resident fossil ...

--

John Devereux

[Bill Sloman]

On Mar 27, 7:13 am, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:
> On 3/26/2013 1:14 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> > You haven't been paying attention. Multiple drug resistant strains of
> > tuberculosis have evolved within living memory.

> > They may not represent a new species, but they do represent a real

> > nuisance.
>
> You are the one not paying attention. I didn't argue about the existence
> of evolution. I just asked what difference does it make to us now what
> somebody believes about it if that happens over millions of years where
> any generation of humans cannot even affect, witness or observe it.

And I was giving you an example of it happening within a human
lifetime, and having a very real and immdediate effect.

>The hybrids we "engineered" cannot reproduce themselves,

What makes you think that?

> so they are a dead-end in the evolution. We could not even affect the mutation of
> viruses or bacteria.

Craig Venter has built an artificial bacterium genome from scratch.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form

> >> It's no different than believing in extra-terrestial beings.
>
> > Not exactly. Fossils exist. Extra-terrestrial beings are purely
> > hypothetical.
>
> Except that we cannot prove definitely that those fossils really evolved
> from one to another or were separate species to begin with where the
> ones with less ability to adapt to changing environment died out and the
> others survived.

Science never proves anything definitely, but it can show that this
hypothesis is consistent with everything we know, and is a much better
explanation than any other explanation that anybody has come up with.

>Heck, not long ago the common scientific view was that
> humans evolved from monkeys or apes. Now the common view is that we
> represent separate evolutionary chains. Who knows what scientist will
> say 10 year from now?

You clearly don't know what scientists were saying back when Charles
Darwin got the ball rolling, and haven't got much of an idea of what
they are saying now.

The official formulation always was that the great apes and human had
a fairly recent common ancestor - we now know that this was somewhere
between 7 and 14 million years ago - and that the common ancestor of
monkeys. apes and humans lived quite a bit earlier - we now that this
was more than 20 million years ago, and probably not more than about
40 million years ago.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Researchers_discover_last_common_ancestor_of_apes_and_monkeys

> > A view that includes fossils is almost certainly superior to one that
> > doesn't.
>
> Certainly some fossils on this NG might think that.
>
> > The more you know about the past, the more reliably you can
> > predict the future. those that don't know history are condemned to
> > repeat it.
>
> More banality from our resident fossil ...

Not exactly a banality - you clearly don't appreciate how little you
know.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Tom Hoehler]

"Bill Sloman" <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:33d301f5-f485-4be5...@ps9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

And I thought in his re-introduction to the group that Sloman would stick to
on-topic ELECTRONIC matters, and keep politics and snide remarks out. Sigh.
He must always prove that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Poor
thing.

Tom, Louisville

[Jamie]

Do you actually believe half the stuff you spew out here? More
so, you should be questioning yourself.

Jamie

[josephkk]

We have not documented it progressing to the point of speciation. We have
documented natural selection in the wild driving _population_ phenotype
(appearance) to complete color dominance toward one color then back. We
have been breeding all of our associated animals and flowering plants (and
yes mushrooms as well) for thousands of years to get the properties we
want.

?-)

[Bill Sloman]

On Mar 27, 11:06 am, Jamie

<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
> Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 7:13 am, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>On 3/26/2013 1:14 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> >>>You haven't been paying attention. Multiple drug resistant strains of
> >>>tuberculosis have evolved within living memory.
> >>>They may not represent a new species, but they do represent a real
> >>>nuisance.
>
> >>You are the one not paying attention. I didn't argue about the existence
> >>of evolution. I just asked what difference does it make to us now what
> >>somebody believes about it if that happens over millions of years where
> >>any generation of humans cannot even affect, witness or observe it.
>
> > And I was giving you an example of it happening within a human
> > lifetime, and having a very real and immdediate effect.
>
> >>The hybrids we "engineered" cannot reproduce themselves,
>
> > What makes you think that?
>
> >>so they are a dead-end in the evolution. We could not even affect the mutation of
> >>viruses or bacteria.
>
> > Craig Venter has built an artificial bacterium genome from scratch.
>

> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-...

>
> >>>>It's no different than believing in extra-terrestial beings.
>
> >>>Not exactly. Fossils exist. Extra-terrestrial beings are purely
> >>>hypothetical.
>
> >>Except that we cannot prove definitely that those fossils really evolved
> >>from one to another or were separate species to begin with where the
> >>ones with less ability to adapt to changing environment died out and the
> >>others survived.
>
> > Science never proves anything definitely, but it can show that this
> > hypothesis is consistent with everything we know, and is a much better
> > explanation than any other explanation that anybody has come up with.
>
> >>Heck, not long ago the common scientific view was that
> >>humans evolved from monkeys or apes. Now the common view is that we
> >>represent separate evolutionary chains. Who knows what scientist will
> >>say 10 year from now?
>
> > You clearly don't know what scientists were saying back when Charles
> > Darwin got the ball rolling, and haven't got much of an idea of what
> > they are saying now.
>
> > The official formulation always was that the great apes and human had
> > a fairly recent common ancestor - we now know that this was somewhere
> > between 7 and 14 million years ago - and that the common ancestor of
> > monkeys. apes and humans lived quite a bit earlier - we now that this
> > was more than 20 million years ago, and probably not more than about
> > 40 million years ago.
>

> >http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Researchers_discover_last_common_ancestor...

>
> >>>A view that includes fossils is almost certainly superior to one that
> >>>doesn't.
>
> >>Certainly some fossils on this NG might think that.
>
> >>>The more you know about the past, the more reliably you can
> >>>predict the future. those that don't know history are condemned to
> >>>repeat it.
>
> >>More banality from our resident fossil ...
>
> > Not exactly a banality - you clearly don't appreciate how little you
> > know.
>

>   Do you actually believe half the stuff you spew out here? More
> so, you should be questioning yourself.

If you disagree with what I've posted, either post your counter-
evidence, or shut up.

---
Bill Sloman, Sydney