Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"No One" is sitting in my empty chairs
32 views
Skip to first unread message
Timothy Sutter
Sep 12, 2012, 9:30:19 AM9/12/12
to
> ===
> http://tinyurl.com/d3853af
> government bank
> alt.magick - 59 posts - 5 authors- Last post: Dec 17, 2011
> ... you have this board room or whatever, and the chair at
> the head of the table is empty and sometimes, when someone says;
> "direct your comments to the chair"
> ===
cuz they used to say "chairman" like, 'chairman mao"
and then they tried changing it to "chairwoman"
if ever there was a woman chairman, which my muvva said
"chairman" was still ok, and, like, she was a woman,
so, if it didn't bother her, why should it bother me?
or "chairperson" and that was
just plaine olde cumbersome
so, they changed it to "chair"
"direct your comments to the chair"
and so, i started talking to chairs....empty ones...
well, not really, i just -thought- about talking to chairs...
i don't know why harry started talking to chairs
maybe he's just going batty...
[just kidding]
i'm not batty
i had this vision of a deep dark blackness
at the very center of the phychological "hell"
[whatever that means]
which was like a small concrete stonework room
that was the deepest darkest blackness you would imagine
and "No One" was in there
only No One was sort of like "a person"
who's sitting in that chair?
"No One"
and then you get to make up all sorts of gags
about the things "No One" does...
usually "No One" is actually sitting in my empty chairs...
etc. etc...
> it's nice, sometimes, when someone else
> gets a similar idea as you.
>
> it's a long standing gag with me.
> they call it "independant discovery"
>
> although, somewhere i claim similitude to the bugs bunny
> cartoon about all the hats that fall on bug's and elmer's
> heads and the hat makes them behave in certain ways,
>
> so, i developed a chair that tells you what to do,
> and who wants to be told what to do by a chair?
>
> so, leave the chair at the head of the table empty, etc. etc.
>
> ===
> http://tinyurl.com/bmzeq4q
> Refrigerator Heaven
> alt.timothy.sutter -1392 posts-143 authors-Last post: Feb 24,2001
> ... the Main Seat at the board room should be an empty one. and then
> everyone can direct their questions to the chair. and scream at the
> chair.
> ===
>
> ===
> http://tinyurl.com/d5capk4
> 7/13/09
> and sometimes, at the bored meeting
>
> you may as well leave the chair at the head of the table empty
>
> and you can say;
>
> "direct your comments to the chair"
>
> and you can go and scream at an empty chair
>
> go right ahead
>
> why should i care
>
> stoopid chair
> ==
>
> ===
> http://tinyurl.com/d3853af
> government bank
> alt.magick - 59 posts - 5 authors- Last post: Dec 17, 2011
> ... you have this board room or whatever, and the chair at
> the head of the table is empty and sometimes, when someone says;
> "direct your comments to the chair"
> ===
> http://tinyurl.com/d3853af
> government bank
> alt.magick - 59 posts - 5 authors- Last post: Dec 17, 2011
> ... you have this board room or whatever, and the chair at
> the head of the table is empty and sometimes, when someone says;
> "direct your comments to the chair"
> ===
cuz they used to say "chairman" like, 'chairman mao"
and then they tried changing it to "chairwoman"
if ever there was a woman chairman, which my muvva said
"chairman" was still ok, and, like, she was a woman,
so, if it didn't bother her, why should it bother me?
or "chairperson" and that was
just plaine olde cumbersome
so, they changed it to "chair"
"direct your comments to the chair"
and so, i started talking to chairs....empty ones...
well, not really, i just -thought- about talking to chairs...
i don't know why harry started talking to chairs
maybe he's just going batty...
[just kidding]
i'm not batty
i had this vision of a deep dark blackness
at the very center of the phychological "hell"
[whatever that means]
which was like a small concrete stonework room
that was the deepest darkest blackness you would imagine
and "No One" was in there
only No One was sort of like "a person"
who's sitting in that chair?
"No One"
and then you get to make up all sorts of gags
about the things "No One" does...
usually "No One" is actually sitting in my empty chairs...
etc. etc...
> it's nice, sometimes, when someone else
> gets a similar idea as you.
>
> it's a long standing gag with me.
> they call it "independant discovery"
>
> although, somewhere i claim similitude to the bugs bunny
> cartoon about all the hats that fall on bug's and elmer's
> heads and the hat makes them behave in certain ways,
>
> so, i developed a chair that tells you what to do,
> and who wants to be told what to do by a chair?
>
> so, leave the chair at the head of the table empty, etc. etc.
>
> ===
> http://tinyurl.com/bmzeq4q
> Refrigerator Heaven
> alt.timothy.sutter -1392 posts-143 authors-Last post: Feb 24,2001
> ... the Main Seat at the board room should be an empty one. and then
> everyone can direct their questions to the chair. and scream at the
> chair.
> ===
>
> ===
> http://tinyurl.com/d5capk4
> 7/13/09
> and sometimes, at the bored meeting
>
> you may as well leave the chair at the head of the table empty
>
> and you can say;
>
> "direct your comments to the chair"
>
> and you can go and scream at an empty chair
>
> go right ahead
>
> why should i care
>
> stoopid chair
> ==
>
> ===
> http://tinyurl.com/d3853af
> government bank
> alt.magick - 59 posts - 5 authors- Last post: Dec 17, 2011
> ... you have this board room or whatever, and the chair at
> the head of the table is empty and sometimes, when someone says;
> "direct your comments to the chair"
> ===
Timothy Sutter
Sep 12, 2012, 10:09:49 AM9/12/12
to
> usually "No One" is actually sitting in my empty chairs...
but straying from "reality" tooo far can be stoopidendous
because, like, one may be suggesting to themself that
"an infinite number of computer programs"
can be talked about, 99.999999...% of which
don't -do- anything at all
sometimes, because they're corrupted versions
of programs that do do things and you can have
some 'infinite' ....i don't even like saying
"number" here...
...some "infinite" array of 'corrupted' versions
of programs that could do something if they
were constructed 'properly' and had
a machine to 'run' on, and
is it possible for some -machine- to figure out,
which one is the 'working' program out of the
infinite array of programs, -like- the one
that does work, that don't work?
yeah yeah yeah, given "infionite time"
-and- a very patient programmer
we can find the 'working' model by trial and error,
'borrowing' programs from the infinite array of
pre-existing programs, looking for, and perhaps
finding, that one, or small set, that actually 'operate.
but No One doesn't like to think of this as a borrowing
out of a bin of programs that 'existed' before time immemorial
and instead, likes to consider the possibility
that a 'new thing' has been constructed, so, we don't need,
nor can we actually, think of this infinite array of
possible programs that sit in a mythological bucket
soemwhere just waitimng for teh "lucky" programmer
to hit the number and "find" a working construction.
sidetracking; [do loop]
and then you have your "Eris and Ameris" illusions
where "Eris" is small and represents all the
programs that actually could be working
functional programs
and "Aneris" is all the programs that either
don't function or just don't do anything at all
and, of course, "Aneris" is much much larger than "Eris"
so, "Eris" likes to try and grab programs
from "Aneris" and make them work
somnetimes with some success and sometimes,
just another paperweight...
[end do loop]
"you mean, there's a way OUT of this miasmic quagmire?"
of course, of course, and the still
small voice wispers quietly;
"follow my trail of bread crumbs, there's
a light at the end of this tunnel"
STOP
oh, i'll stop here, but not because
of that silly stop sign, but because
it is the coreect thing to do,
and i realize that.
END.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 12, 2012, 10:15:52 AM9/12/12
to
not finished ...yet. instead, some olde post...
you'll just have to accept the fact that
it is germaine if not tito and certainly not michael.
===
i did mention the "semi-permeable membrane" bit before...
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > so, either you say that all people have the Holy Spirit
> > abiding from flesh birth and no matter what they do or think,
> > it is the Holy Spirit who does and thinks....<...>
someone said:
> Is God spirit?
more to the point, is hydrogen gas, "spirit"?
is gold and platinum, "spirit"?
someone said:
> Is God infinite?
hydrogen gas, gold and platinum do not seem to be "infinite"
based on keen observations, these -things- are "finite"
someone said:
> If God is INFINITE SPIRIT (holy Spirit)
> then there is NOWHERE where God is not.
if you draw a distinction between matter and "spirit"
then, it may be somewhat like a "semi-permeable membrane"
because we may be able to suggest that "God's Spirit"
has no such "exclusion principle" as does matter
and therefore, can be present 'where' matter is present,
without -being- itself, made of matter, while
we cannot say the same thing about matter
in that matter is finite and not present
where there is no matter present.
and now there's the prospect of -interaction-
and, 'finite' matter may not be able to
-comprehend- "Spirit" unless that Spirit
make itself known.
man seems to be in possession of a "consciousness emulator"
while God is "Pure Consciousness"
and then there is "communication"
or the prospect thereof of such a communcation
between said "consciousness emulators"
and God's own Pure Consciousness
and this is the distinction we point out.
that of communicative interaction betwen God and man
and not just assuming that being in a universe where God IS
demands such communication without direction.
you'll just have to accept the fact that
it is germaine if not tito and certainly not michael.
===
i did mention the "semi-permeable membrane" bit before...
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > so, either you say that all people have the Holy Spirit
> > abiding from flesh birth and no matter what they do or think,
> > it is the Holy Spirit who does and thinks....<...>
someone said:
> Is God spirit?
more to the point, is hydrogen gas, "spirit"?
is gold and platinum, "spirit"?
someone said:
> Is God infinite?
hydrogen gas, gold and platinum do not seem to be "infinite"
based on keen observations, these -things- are "finite"
someone said:
> If God is INFINITE SPIRIT (holy Spirit)
> then there is NOWHERE where God is not.
if you draw a distinction between matter and "spirit"
then, it may be somewhat like a "semi-permeable membrane"
because we may be able to suggest that "God's Spirit"
has no such "exclusion principle" as does matter
and therefore, can be present 'where' matter is present,
without -being- itself, made of matter, while
we cannot say the same thing about matter
in that matter is finite and not present
where there is no matter present.
and now there's the prospect of -interaction-
and, 'finite' matter may not be able to
-comprehend- "Spirit" unless that Spirit
make itself known.
man seems to be in possession of a "consciousness emulator"
while God is "Pure Consciousness"
and then there is "communication"
or the prospect thereof of such a communcation
between said "consciousness emulators"
and God's own Pure Consciousness
and this is the distinction we point out.
that of communicative interaction betwen God and man
and not just assuming that being in a universe where God IS
demands such communication without direction.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 12, 2012, 10:16:13 AM9/12/12
to
> the semi-permeable membrane
if, you skip over the "procedure and methodology" section,
you will never be able to compare a result
with the "results" section,
and it would never be my compelling element
to -plead- with -anyone- who will -not- follow
the "procedures and methodologies" section
and simply says;
"i don't get your results and therefore,
your results are invalid"
in other words,
i don't have to plead with anyone or any group
to follow the "procedures and methodologies" section,
but who, simply -insist- that their ignorance and
lack of knowledge is the -only- _possible_ result.
all the while, 'they' or whomsoever is/are all to willing
to take dish fed results sections about phenomena that
-they- have never experienced personally for granted
and -without- "personal experience" as "evidence"
so, they 'believe' one thing that they have never
=personally= experienced because they want to be
part of that group who follows such and such an ideology,
but make demands of another group for -evidence- that
-they- are simply unwilling to gather up -by- following
the proper and correct "procedures and methodologies"
and so, by personal preference
and personal preference alone,
they accept one ideological framework as correct
-without- personal experience -as- 'evidence'
and reject another ideological framework
simply because they won't -look- -for-
the evidences themselves, and rush precipitously
to the conclusion that there is no evidence to be seen,
based on group favorability and group favorability alone.
anyway, a semi-permeable membrane, in the natural,
is like a grating that allows some things to pass through
and yet, prevents other things from passing through,
like maybe sodium ions which are small can pass through
and potassium ions which are larger cannot,
so, an electircal gradient it set up and this
helps to regulate heart contrctions etc.
so, in likeness,
this is a gradient which certain phenomena
can pass ---> in a one way fashion
you may not be able to just waltz over through
the semi-permeable membrane and "see" God almighty,
but God almighty, not only can, but -must- come
'through the veil' to you.
and 'communion' is possible but then we have
to, also, deal with the 'signal to noise' problems...
if, you skip over the "procedure and methodology" section,
you will never be able to compare a result
with the "results" section,
and it would never be my compelling element
to -plead- with -anyone- who will -not- follow
the "procedures and methodologies" section
and simply says;
"i don't get your results and therefore,
your results are invalid"
in other words,
i don't have to plead with anyone or any group
to follow the "procedures and methodologies" section,
but who, simply -insist- that their ignorance and
lack of knowledge is the -only- _possible_ result.
all the while, 'they' or whomsoever is/are all to willing
to take dish fed results sections about phenomena that
-they- have never experienced personally for granted
and -without- "personal experience" as "evidence"
so, they 'believe' one thing that they have never
=personally= experienced because they want to be
part of that group who follows such and such an ideology,
but make demands of another group for -evidence- that
-they- are simply unwilling to gather up -by- following
the proper and correct "procedures and methodologies"
and so, by personal preference
and personal preference alone,
they accept one ideological framework as correct
-without- personal experience -as- 'evidence'
and reject another ideological framework
simply because they won't -look- -for-
the evidences themselves, and rush precipitously
to the conclusion that there is no evidence to be seen,
based on group favorability and group favorability alone.
anyway, a semi-permeable membrane, in the natural,
is like a grating that allows some things to pass through
and yet, prevents other things from passing through,
like maybe sodium ions which are small can pass through
and potassium ions which are larger cannot,
so, an electircal gradient it set up and this
helps to regulate heart contrctions etc.
so, in likeness,
this is a gradient which certain phenomena
can pass ---> in a one way fashion
you may not be able to just waltz over through
the semi-permeable membrane and "see" God almighty,
but God almighty, not only can, but -must- come
'through the veil' to you.
and 'communion' is possible but then we have
to, also, deal with the 'signal to noise' problems...
Timothy Sutter
Sep 12, 2012, 10:16:42 AM9/12/12
to
] the unknown God [
I choose ---> I guess
I am chosen <---> I am known
the personal nature of God requires
a conscious allowance of comprehensibility
by God to whomsoever will attain to it.
while any reasonable person should be able
to infer the existance, and absolute necessity,
of a conscious initiator who brings the
material universe in to being from some
non-material predecessor, and who, subsequently,
initiates the animated living processes
in the material composition,
that same reasonable person may not simply deduce
the total personality of God from some careful
study of his or her own environment nor his
or her own personality.
and so, inasmuch as a conscious personal God
operates under some methodology whereby that
same God will reveal God's personality to
living creatures of the material nature,
we can easily suggest that God 'chooses'
how God will reveal God to these same creatures.
and so, the 'choice' being God's and not
the living creatures' is no special reflection
on the merits of the living creatures, but is
simply a reflection of God's own personal nature.
that is, that God 'chooses' to reveal God and
make God comprehensible to 'us' is a direct
entailment of the personal nature of God.
God must choose because God is personal.
what 'we' can do, is to point at generalized overviews
of how God chose to reveal aspects of God's nature
to 'us', in hopes that any who may hear will be
come upon by the same sublime characteristics
of God's nature as 'we' who point.
and the evidentiary nature of these sublime
characteristics is one objective proof.
that is, the proof of God is God
and not my pointing and explanations.
God chooses to reveal God to whom God will.
God is not a shattered guesswork portrait
of irreconcilable contradictions, and the
result of anyone's best offorts at constructing
a personalized idolatry will never rise
and walk on its own.
our minds must be renovated to the consciousness
of God by God and inasmuch as any of 'us' may be
of any help in that process, we render our
services with gratitude.
on so on...
I choose ---> I guess
I am chosen <---> I am known
the personal nature of God requires
a conscious allowance of comprehensibility
by God to whomsoever will attain to it.
while any reasonable person should be able
to infer the existance, and absolute necessity,
of a conscious initiator who brings the
material universe in to being from some
non-material predecessor, and who, subsequently,
initiates the animated living processes
in the material composition,
that same reasonable person may not simply deduce
the total personality of God from some careful
study of his or her own environment nor his
or her own personality.
and so, inasmuch as a conscious personal God
operates under some methodology whereby that
same God will reveal God's personality to
living creatures of the material nature,
we can easily suggest that God 'chooses'
how God will reveal God to these same creatures.
and so, the 'choice' being God's and not
the living creatures' is no special reflection
on the merits of the living creatures, but is
simply a reflection of God's own personal nature.
that is, that God 'chooses' to reveal God and
make God comprehensible to 'us' is a direct
entailment of the personal nature of God.
God must choose because God is personal.
what 'we' can do, is to point at generalized overviews
of how God chose to reveal aspects of God's nature
to 'us', in hopes that any who may hear will be
come upon by the same sublime characteristics
of God's nature as 'we' who point.
and the evidentiary nature of these sublime
characteristics is one objective proof.
that is, the proof of God is God
and not my pointing and explanations.
God chooses to reveal God to whom God will.
God is not a shattered guesswork portrait
of irreconcilable contradictions, and the
result of anyone's best offorts at constructing
a personalized idolatry will never rise
and walk on its own.
our minds must be renovated to the consciousness
of God by God and inasmuch as any of 'us' may be
of any help in that process, we render our
services with gratitude.
on so on...
Timothy Sutter
Sep 12, 2012, 11:03:13 AM9/12/12
to
> on so on...
as a side comment, if a mob of people went down
to massachusettes avenue or thereabouts and firebombed
the Libyan embassy, the fedeal police would bust them
and try them on severe criminal charges,
but, the Libyan gubbment is not taking credit for
this 'attack' on the U.S. Embassy and may, simply
not have the resources to arrest the Libyan
civilians who perpetrated this criminal action.
the U.S. Federal Government in not taking credit for
he production of some movie that offends... the people
who became offened by it.
sure, there are some blurry lines between
american people abnd th U.S. Federal Government
but american people do things all the time without
even asking the Federal government, and sometimes
these things are criminal and sometimes they are
just a normal course of a day's events.
when people rise up and go after government installations,
they're making a bit of a mistake, and a large one in
the understanding of how 'democratic' governments operate.
what they -could- have does was to =petition= the u.s. ambassador
to look into the film and how itwas affecting those people's life.
but to kill this person for a film that the
federal government is not taking credit
for is just wrong.
you -don't- really want to make an -enemy-
out of the u.s. federal government.
but killing federal agents does step
close to such an eventuality.
so what?
well, unca sam isn't likely to start
dropping bombs on libya for this,
but, you haven't made a friend here.
and if you -ever- expect to get the
Tripoli Hilton up and running
you -don't- want unca sam in a bind.
etc.
yes, the u.s. federal police would arrest
any mob of american citizens who stormed
a country's embassy in america and carried out
acts of violence against that embassy.
so, the distinction is there...
you've picked the -wrong- 'perpetrator' here...
the u.s. ambassador did -nothing-
and neither did the u.s. federal government.
-some- day, this may be clear to such mobs.
as a side comment, if a mob of people went down
to massachusettes avenue or thereabouts and firebombed
the Libyan embassy, the fedeal police would bust them
and try them on severe criminal charges,
but, the Libyan gubbment is not taking credit for
this 'attack' on the U.S. Embassy and may, simply
not have the resources to arrest the Libyan
civilians who perpetrated this criminal action.
the U.S. Federal Government in not taking credit for
he production of some movie that offends... the people
who became offened by it.
sure, there are some blurry lines between
american people abnd th U.S. Federal Government
but american people do things all the time without
even asking the Federal government, and sometimes
these things are criminal and sometimes they are
just a normal course of a day's events.
when people rise up and go after government installations,
they're making a bit of a mistake, and a large one in
the understanding of how 'democratic' governments operate.
what they -could- have does was to =petition= the u.s. ambassador
to look into the film and how itwas affecting those people's life.
but to kill this person for a film that the
federal government is not taking credit
for is just wrong.
you -don't- really want to make an -enemy-
out of the u.s. federal government.
but killing federal agents does step
close to such an eventuality.
so what?
well, unca sam isn't likely to start
dropping bombs on libya for this,
but, you haven't made a friend here.
and if you -ever- expect to get the
Tripoli Hilton up and running
you -don't- want unca sam in a bind.
etc.
yes, the u.s. federal police would arrest
any mob of american citizens who stormed
a country's embassy in america and carried out
acts of violence against that embassy.
so, the distinction is there...
you've picked the -wrong- 'perpetrator' here...
the u.s. ambassador did -nothing-
and neither did the u.s. federal government.
-some- day, this may be clear to such mobs.
hidy ho
Sep 12, 2012, 11:10:36 AM9/12/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
news:5050A4...@lycos.com-...
<snip crap>
you sick little monkey,
Timothy Sutter
Sep 12, 2012, 11:17:11 AM9/12/12
to
hidy ho wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> <snip crap>
> you sick little monkey,
you were smiling when you said that, of course, pilgrim...
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> <snip crap>
> you sick little monkey,
Hebleya
Sep 12, 2012, 12:15:52 PM9/12/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
but sick means sick,
and your empty chair analysis indicates an empty head,
see ? you have No Brain.
http://www.collecttoys.net/1960s-Toys/images/troll-doll.jpg
Timothy Sutter
Sep 12, 2012, 12:17:13 PM9/12/12
to
> yes, the u.s. federal police would arrest
> any mob of american citizens who stormed
> a country's embassy in america and carried out
> acts of violence against that embassy.
> so, the distinction is there...
> you've picked the -wrong- 'perpetrator' here...
> the u.s. ambassador did -nothing-
> and neither did the u.s. federal government.
> -some- day, this may be clear to such mobs.
=you= may very well kill someone in your country
> any mob of american citizens who stormed
> a country's embassy in america and carried out
> acts of violence against that embassy.
> so, the distinction is there...
> you've picked the -wrong- 'perpetrator' here...
> the u.s. ambassador did -nothing-
> and neither did the u.s. federal government.
> -some- day, this may be clear to such mobs.
for depicting mohammed in some way to which you object
but, =you= -killed- a person who had nothing to do
with the action and a person who has been -invited-
in to your country as a -guest-
this is not Justice,
this is a criminal act.
simple as that.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 12, 2012, 12:22:14 PM9/12/12
to
Hebleya wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> > hidy ho wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >> <snip crap>
> >> you sick little monkey,
> > you were smiling when you said that, of course, pilgrim...
> you imply that only pilgrims smile,
no, i was quoting a line attributed to John Wayne;
http://www.sploofus.com/triviaquiz/the_duke__john_wayne_movies.html
> but sick means sick,
sick of who and or what?
i never said i was sick of you, so,
maybe you are sick of me,
but that is a different story and
one you have not stated explicittly.
> and your empty chair analysis indicates an empty head,
to you, perhaps
> see ? you have No Brain.
then there will be nothing for the ghouls at NIH
to eat after i die.
win/win for me...
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> > hidy ho wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >> <snip crap>
> >> you sick little monkey,
> > you were smiling when you said that, of course, pilgrim...
> you imply that only pilgrims smile,
http://www.sploofus.com/triviaquiz/the_duke__john_wayne_movies.html
> but sick means sick,
sick of who and or what?
i never said i was sick of you, so,
maybe you are sick of me,
but that is a different story and
one you have not stated explicittly.
> and your empty chair analysis indicates an empty head,
> see ? you have No Brain.
to eat after i die.
win/win for me...
Hebleya
Sep 12, 2012, 12:34:10 PM9/12/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
> Hebleya wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote...
>
>> > hidy ho wrote:
>
>> >> Timothy Sutter wrote...
>
>> >> <snip crap>
>
>> >> you sick little monkey,
>
>> > you were smiling when you said that, of course, pilgrim...
>
>> you imply that only pilgrims smile,
>
>
> no, i was quoting a line attributed to John Wayne;
>
> http://www.sploofus.com/triviaquiz/the_duke__john_wayne_movies.html
he used it to intimidate people in movies, pupa.
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote...
>
>> > hidy ho wrote:
>
>> >> Timothy Sutter wrote...
>
>> >> <snip crap>
>
>> >> you sick little monkey,
>
>> > you were smiling when you said that, of course, pilgrim...
>
>> you imply that only pilgrims smile,
>
>
> no, i was quoting a line attributed to John Wayne;
>
> http://www.sploofus.com/triviaquiz/the_duke__john_wayne_movies.html
>
>
>> but sick means sick,
>
>
> sick of who and or what?
mentally impaired, as they are illogical.
It may be hard for you to see that, pupa.
>
> i never said i was sick of you, so,
> maybe you are sick of me,
>
> but that is a different story and
> one you have not stated explicittly.
>
>
>> and your empty chair analysis indicates an empty head,
>
>
> to you, perhaps
>
>
>
>> see ? you have No Brain.
>
>
> then there will be nothing for the ghouls at NIH
>
> to eat after i die.
>
>
> win/win for me...
yes, a good learning lesson for you!
Timothy Sutter
Sep 12, 2012, 12:39:57 PM9/12/12
to
Hebleya wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> > Hebleya wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >> > hidy ho wrote:
> >> >> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >> >> <snip crap>
> >> >> you sick little monkey,
> >> > you were smiling when you said that, of course, pilgrim...
> >> you imply that only pilgrims smile,
> > no, i was quoting a line attributed to John Wayne;
> > http://www.sploofus.com/triviaquiz/the_duke__john_wayne_movies.html
> he used it to intimidate people in movies, pupa.
i'm glad you aren't calling me "honey"
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> > Hebleya wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >> > hidy ho wrote:
> >> >> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >> >> <snip crap>
> >> >> you sick little monkey,
> >> > you were smiling when you said that, of course, pilgrim...
> >> you imply that only pilgrims smile,
> > no, i was quoting a line attributed to John Wayne;
> > http://www.sploofus.com/triviaquiz/the_duke__john_wayne_movies.html
> he used it to intimidate people in movies, pupa.
Hebleya
Sep 12, 2012, 12:59:52 PM9/12/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
just terms thrown in for intimidation value,
but "sick little money", is old Internet stuff, not for intimidation- more
for humor ,
these words or phrases may cause a Halting problem in posting.
Undetectable Halting problem
Nazi or Hitler usually causes a Halting problem or not
Timothy Sutter
Sep 12, 2012, 1:21:30 PM9/12/12
to
Hebleya wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote
> > i'm glad you aren't calling me "honey"
> pilgrim
==
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pilgrim?s=t
pilgrim
noun
2. a traveler or wanderer, especially in a foreign place.
3. an original settler in a region.
5. a newcomer to a region or place,
especially to the western U.S.
==
these could apply to "hidy ho"
but, like i said, i was mimicking
a John Wayne quote or one
attribted to him.
i wasn't certain that "hidy ho" was
actually cursing me in some manner.
so, i won't immediately "kill-file" hidy ho.
although, i may not go out of my way
to ever read any post by "hidy ho"
or "Hebleya" in the future.
"flame wars" and "name calling" tend towards
tedious nonsense and not worth
my precious energies.
> Timothy Sutter wrote
> > i'm glad you aren't calling me "honey"
> pilgrim
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pilgrim?s=t
pilgrim
noun
2. a traveler or wanderer, especially in a foreign place.
3. an original settler in a region.
5. a newcomer to a region or place,
especially to the western U.S.
==
these could apply to "hidy ho"
but, like i said, i was mimicking
a John Wayne quote or one
attribted to him.
i wasn't certain that "hidy ho" was
actually cursing me in some manner.
so, i won't immediately "kill-file" hidy ho.
although, i may not go out of my way
to ever read any post by "hidy ho"
or "Hebleya" in the future.
"flame wars" and "name calling" tend towards
tedious nonsense and not worth
my precious energies.
Hebleya
Sep 12, 2012, 1:31:07 PM9/12/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
|-| E R C
Sep 13, 2012, 5:51:02 AM9/13/12
to
On Sep 13, 7:35 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 11:11 pm, Barb Knox <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>
> > Many disbelievers in the unsolvability of the Halting Problem focus on
> > the self-reference aspect of the construction in the proof as being
> > suspect.
>
> > For their benefit, here is a proof that avoids explicit self-reference.
>
> There is going to be implicit self-reference anyway because you are
..going around in circles..
"SHOW ME A DIGIT ON THE DIAGONAL THAT IS EQUAL
TO THAT DIGIT POSITION OF THE ANTIDIAGONAL"
You all believe this proves EXIST(X) X>oo rows!
> > PROOF OUTLINE
>
> > (1) Assume there is a halting solver HS.
This is the ACTUAL LEVEL OF RIGOUR
that TURING'S Halting Proof uses! It's never been formalised more
than an outline.
The only reason ZFC is popular AT ALL, a *SUB_SET* specification
language
is because it ATTEMPTS to formalise CANTORS PROOF
but it merely circumvents the ARGUMENT (X>oo) into another ARGUMENT
about ONTO FUNCTIONS which are easier to apply MODUS PONENS to LOOK
FORMAL!
>
> > (2) Compute an enumeration (i.e., list) of all syntactically valid
> > functions F (from positive integers to positive integers) in the
> > programming language.
>
> Too hard. Seriously, nobody knows how to do that.
> Much better to just insist that every function HAS a definition
> in the programming language. Now you just need a code-string for
> every program. They are all finite so length-lexicographic order will
> enumerate
> them eventually, but it is not necessary to ACTUALLY enumerate them.
> We just need to know that we have enough strings to go around and that
> they are all unambiguous.
>
> > (3) Filter this enumeration using HS, keeping only the functions which
> > halt on all inputs. This results in an enumeration of all functions F
> > which halt on all inputs; these are called "total" functions.
>
> > (4) Construct a total function DIAG (from positive integers to positive
> > integers) which is provably not in (3)'s enumeration. (Note that this
> > construction will not mention HS, avoiding the self-reference bugbear.)
>
> You CAN'T just say "construct a total fuction DIAG". YOU OWE US
> *SOME*CODE* for the function. You have TO WRITE the function.
>
RIGHT! Partial Credit to BARB for STEERING THE TOPIC in the right
direction, and reducing the Halting Proof down to only 4 serious
errors this time!
h(f, x) <-> f(x) + 1 IFF f(x) HALTS
<-> 0 OTHERWISE
NOW for the OTHER 3 ERRORS!
You can't just GASBAG about PROGRAMS and FUNCTIONS that return ANTI-
DIAGONALS and THROW CONTRADICTIONS at what you THINK was the
ASSUMPTION.
You have to actually FORMALISE THEORIES much like GODEL DID to PROVE
GS is TRUE.
C1 |- f1, f2, f3, f4...
C2 |- anti-diag(f1(1), f2(2), f3(3)... )
THEN you might ONE DAY WAKE UP
that you CANNOT FORMALISE SUCH TRIVIAL ERRORS as the HALTING PROOF!
QUESTION
---------------
IS THERE ANY DIFFERENT BETWEEN
1 A PROGRAM THAT CAN OUTPUT THE HALTING VALUE OF ANY PROGRAM AND INPUT
AND
2 A FUNCTION THAT CAN RETURN THE HALTING VALUE OF ANY PROGRAM AND
INPUT
If you CARRY ON about the HALTING PROOF ANY LONGER without ADDRESSING
THE SERIOUS FLAWS, such as THIS QUESTION EXPOSES you have no busines
in a LOGIC DISCUSSION GROUP.
Herc
> On Sep 10, 11:11 pm, Barb Knox <s...@sig.below> wrote:
>
> > Many disbelievers in the unsolvability of the Halting Problem focus on
> > the self-reference aspect of the construction in the proof as being
> > suspect.
>
> > For their benefit, here is a proof that avoids explicit self-reference.
>
> There is going to be implicit self-reference anyway because you are
..going around in circles..
"SHOW ME A DIGIT ON THE DIAGONAL THAT IS EQUAL
TO THAT DIGIT POSITION OF THE ANTIDIAGONAL"
You all believe this proves EXIST(X) X>oo rows!
> > PROOF OUTLINE
>
> > (1) Assume there is a halting solver HS.
This is the ACTUAL LEVEL OF RIGOUR
that TURING'S Halting Proof uses! It's never been formalised more
than an outline.
The only reason ZFC is popular AT ALL, a *SUB_SET* specification
language
is because it ATTEMPTS to formalise CANTORS PROOF
but it merely circumvents the ARGUMENT (X>oo) into another ARGUMENT
about ONTO FUNCTIONS which are easier to apply MODUS PONENS to LOOK
FORMAL!
>
> > (2) Compute an enumeration (i.e., list) of all syntactically valid
> > functions F (from positive integers to positive integers) in the
> > programming language.
>
> Too hard. Seriously, nobody knows how to do that.
> Much better to just insist that every function HAS a definition
> in the programming language. Now you just need a code-string for
> every program. They are all finite so length-lexicographic order will
> enumerate
> them eventually, but it is not necessary to ACTUALLY enumerate them.
> We just need to know that we have enough strings to go around and that
> they are all unambiguous.
>
> > (3) Filter this enumeration using HS, keeping only the functions which
> > halt on all inputs. This results in an enumeration of all functions F
> > which halt on all inputs; these are called "total" functions.
>
> > (4) Construct a total function DIAG (from positive integers to positive
> > integers) which is provably not in (3)'s enumeration. (Note that this
> > construction will not mention HS, avoiding the self-reference bugbear.)
>
> You CAN'T just say "construct a total fuction DIAG". YOU OWE US
> *SOME*CODE* for the function. You have TO WRITE the function.
>
RIGHT! Partial Credit to BARB for STEERING THE TOPIC in the right
direction, and reducing the Halting Proof down to only 4 serious
errors this time!
h(f, x) <-> f(x) + 1 IFF f(x) HALTS
<-> 0 OTHERWISE
NOW for the OTHER 3 ERRORS!
You can't just GASBAG about PROGRAMS and FUNCTIONS that return ANTI-
DIAGONALS and THROW CONTRADICTIONS at what you THINK was the
ASSUMPTION.
You have to actually FORMALISE THEORIES much like GODEL DID to PROVE
GS is TRUE.
C1 |- f1, f2, f3, f4...
C2 |- anti-diag(f1(1), f2(2), f3(3)... )
THEN you might ONE DAY WAKE UP
that you CANNOT FORMALISE SUCH TRIVIAL ERRORS as the HALTING PROOF!
QUESTION
---------------
IS THERE ANY DIFFERENT BETWEEN
1 A PROGRAM THAT CAN OUTPUT THE HALTING VALUE OF ANY PROGRAM AND INPUT
AND
2 A FUNCTION THAT CAN RETURN THE HALTING VALUE OF ANY PROGRAM AND
INPUT
If you CARRY ON about the HALTING PROOF ANY LONGER without ADDRESSING
THE SERIOUS FLAWS, such as THIS QUESTION EXPOSES you have no busines
in a LOGIC DISCUSSION GROUP.
Herc
Timothy Sutter
Sep 13, 2012, 10:17:07 AM9/13/12
to
> STOP
> oh, i'll stop here, but not because
> of that silly stop sign, but because
> it is the coreect thing to do,
> and i realize that.
> END.
scuttlebuut is; some of these characters
> oh, i'll stop here, but not because
> of that silly stop sign, but because
> it is the coreect thing to do,
> and i realize that.
> END.
are just trying to protect their cushy jobs
so they want you to believe that a machine
can't do it for you/them.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 13, 2012, 10:25:30 AM9/13/12
to
doing their job and they just kick back and move
their pencils from one side of the desk
to the other and take off 'early' for
a vital meeting in the...'golf course'
why 'golf course'
because, as scuttlebutt says;
'they' really want you to think that 'golf course' -means-
"vitally important national security meeting'
when it really -does- mean "golf course"
meaniwhile, they do =stock trades=
with a machine that has no 'bugs' innit
-except- for the occaisonal public -showing-
of what could be considered a 'bug' ,,,why?
zzzz so they can make -you- think that
their job can't be done by a machine, of course.
but they trustin' their -bread- to it, bub...
they trustin' their -bread- to a =machine=
-and- playing golf on the sly when they
sposed to be working...
uh huh, now i "get it"
Timothy Sutter
Sep 13, 2012, 10:40:01 AM9/13/12
to
so don't even think about it...
[how can they "not think about it" when
i just dun told'em they -cannot- do it?]
Alonzo Archimedes Future and Dicky Moe are having
a vital meeting out on the golf course
about this right now...
after all, no machine can cypher this one...
Timothy Sutter
Sep 13, 2012, 10:47:25 AM9/13/12
to
> > but they trustin' their -bread- to it, bub...
> > they trustin' their -bread- to a =machine=
> > -and- playing golf on the sly when they
> > sposed to be working...
> > uh huh, now i "get it"
> no, federal workers -cannot- strike,
> so don't even think about it...
> [how can they "not think about it" when
> i just dun told'em they -cannot- do it?]
> Alonzo Archimedes Future and Dicky Moe are having
> a vital meeting out on the golf course
> about this right now...
> after all, no machine can cypher this one...
this just in;
> > they trustin' their -bread- to a =machine=
> > -and- playing golf on the sly when they
> > sposed to be working...
> > uh huh, now i "get it"
> no, federal workers -cannot- strike,
> so don't even think about it...
> [how can they "not think about it" when
> i just dun told'em they -cannot- do it?]
> Alonzo Archimedes Future and Dicky Moe are having
> a vital meeting out on the golf course
> about this right now...
> after all, no machine can cypher this one...
"while federal workers -cannot- strike,
they -can- shuffle their feet very slowly
and take an inordinate amount of time
doing a job that a machine purporedly
-cannot- do for them"
that's the word straight from NeMeSiS itself...
Mike Delanis
Sep 13, 2012, 11:46:24 PM9/13/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 4:18:59 AM9/14/12
to
Mike Delanis wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >> > uh huh, now i "get it"
> >> no, federal workers -cannot- strike,
> >> so don't even think about it...
> >> [how can they "not think about it" when
> >> i just dun told'em they -cannot- do it?]
> >> Alonzo Archimedes Future and Dicky Moe are having
> >> a vital meeting out on the golf course
> >> about this right now...
> >> after all, no machine can cypher this one...
> > this just in;
> > "while federal workers -cannot- strike,
> > they -can- shuffle their feet very slowly
> > and take an inordinate amount of time
> > doing a job that a machine purporedly
> > -cannot- do for them"
> > that's the word straight from NeMeSiS itself...
> so what are you going to do about it ?
see, you start at Hermitage Castle
and you get one ball and one club
and you whack the ball all the way to Inverness,
and if you lose your ball, you better find it
cuz if you don't, you can't get across the river,
and that's where the hole is.
"of course Tim has his own version of golf"
nuh uh, that -is- golf
i don't have a 'different' version,
-you- have a different version.
in fact there may be several variations,
-but- some claim that you -must-
follow in Joseph's footprints
"Joseph, Joseph who?"
Joseph of Arimathea
you people don't now anything,
right, some say you must follow in
Joseph's footprints,,, if you can
still find them
and -if- you find the hole,
you may have just stumbled on the Grail.
"the Grail?"
yes, it's the cup at the hole.
we buried it there so we'd
always know where it was
and how to play to it.
but just remember,
i may have told you where the cup is,
but you still don't really know
-where- the cup is.
don't lose your ball.
the little guy near the bridge
will want to inspect it.
yeah, i know there are already people
on the other side of the river,
-but- they forgot something
when they crossed the river.
and what that is, only Tim will tell.
well, that was just a silly pun,
and not meant to conceal
any useful information.
'fore'
don't lose yur step.
you'll have to go all the
way back to squire one.
maybe it is all made up, maybe not
some people think i'm just playin' a round
i'm not,
that golf course is holy.
it's just hard to find the holes
maybe cuz there ain't none
...must be somewhere
still no holes
nothing Israel
[nothing is real]
"hold on a minnit, is this still about golf
or did you lose your way again?"
i never lost my way
i was just playing around
i'm aloud yuh know
"so there's a golf course with
no holes and the Grail is the cup?"
yeah, the Grail is a cup
"but what about the club?"
if yur lookin' for a knot on your head
think again
you may not wanna join -that- club.
you'll get over it.
"you mean the river?
"i'll get over the river?"
you shoulda never called it a monster
if you have plans of fishin' your
ball outa that lake
and i saw it drop in there.
it's a pretty deep place
and that 'monster' don't take kindly...
[.]
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >> > uh huh, now i "get it"
> >> no, federal workers -cannot- strike,
> >> so don't even think about it...
> >> [how can they "not think about it" when
> >> i just dun told'em they -cannot- do it?]
> >> Alonzo Archimedes Future and Dicky Moe are having
> >> a vital meeting out on the golf course
> >> about this right now...
> >> after all, no machine can cypher this one...
> > this just in;
> > "while federal workers -cannot- strike,
> > they -can- shuffle their feet very slowly
> > and take an inordinate amount of time
> > doing a job that a machine purporedly
> > -cannot- do for them"
> > that's the word straight from NeMeSiS itself...
> so what are you going to do about it ?
and you get one ball and one club
and you whack the ball all the way to Inverness,
and if you lose your ball, you better find it
cuz if you don't, you can't get across the river,
and that's where the hole is.
"of course Tim has his own version of golf"
nuh uh, that -is- golf
i don't have a 'different' version,
-you- have a different version.
in fact there may be several variations,
-but- some claim that you -must-
follow in Joseph's footprints
"Joseph, Joseph who?"
Joseph of Arimathea
you people don't now anything,
right, some say you must follow in
Joseph's footprints,,, if you can
still find them
and -if- you find the hole,
you may have just stumbled on the Grail.
"the Grail?"
yes, it's the cup at the hole.
we buried it there so we'd
always know where it was
and how to play to it.
but just remember,
i may have told you where the cup is,
but you still don't really know
-where- the cup is.
don't lose your ball.
the little guy near the bridge
will want to inspect it.
yeah, i know there are already people
on the other side of the river,
-but- they forgot something
when they crossed the river.
and what that is, only Tim will tell.
well, that was just a silly pun,
and not meant to conceal
any useful information.
'fore'
don't lose yur step.
you'll have to go all the
way back to squire one.
maybe it is all made up, maybe not
some people think i'm just playin' a round
i'm not,
that golf course is holy.
it's just hard to find the holes
maybe cuz there ain't none
...must be somewhere
still no holes
nothing Israel
[nothing is real]
"hold on a minnit, is this still about golf
or did you lose your way again?"
i never lost my way
i was just playing around
i'm aloud yuh know
"so there's a golf course with
no holes and the Grail is the cup?"
yeah, the Grail is a cup
"but what about the club?"
if yur lookin' for a knot on your head
think again
you may not wanna join -that- club.
you'll get over it.
"you mean the river?
"i'll get over the river?"
you shoulda never called it a monster
if you have plans of fishin' your
ball outa that lake
and i saw it drop in there.
it's a pretty deep place
and that 'monster' don't take kindly...
[.]
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 5:02:24 AM9/14/12
to
> no, federal workers -cannot- strike,
> so don't even think about it...
> so don't even think about it...
> scuttlebuut is; some of these characters
> are just trying to protect their cushy jobs
> so they want you to believe that a machine
> can't do it for you/them.
there could beat least two mutually exclusive sets here
> are just trying to protect their cushy jobs
> so they want you to believe that a machine
> can't do it for you/them.
in case i gotta explain everything.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 5:15:19 AM9/14/12
to
> in case i gotta explain everything.
most "turing machines" are imaginary devices
well, i'm imagining a series and parallel port structure
[short version]
D end
/
A --> inp2 --> algor2 A -->
etc.
/ \ /
input --> algor1 B --> inp4 --> algor1
\ / \
C --> inp3 --> algor3 C -->
etc.
\
E end
one of which takes outputs and feeds them in to other machines...
but, of course, the entire string of machines
constitute a single entity.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 5:15:50 AM9/14/12
to
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 5:24:48 AM9/14/12
to
> D end
> /
> A -> inp2 -> algor2 A ->
> / \ /
> input -> algor1 B -> inp4 -> algor1
> \ / \
> C -> inp3 -> algor3 C ->
> \
> E end
no, an "infinite arrray series" is not required,
but there will be convolution.
> /
> A -> inp2 -> algor2 A ->
> / \ /
> input -> algor1 B -> inp4 -> algor1
> \ / \
> C -> inp3 -> algor3 C ->
> \
> E end
no, an "infinite arrray series" is not required,
but there will be convolution.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 5:40:19 AM9/14/12
to
and it helps him decide on his route so that he can
do his job delivering stuff to all the greedy
obnoxious little brats who worship money...
but that's another story.
of couse, that could be "Anti-Clause"
and the -real- Santy Claus delivers niceties
to all the good little children, but the point is,
not the good children , bratty children dichotomy
but the way Santy Claus chooses his rout.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 5:45:34 AM9/14/12
to
> > no, an "infinite arrray series" is not required,
> > but there will be convolution.
> Santy Claus has one up and running at the North Pole
> and it helps him decide on his route so that he can
> do his job delivering stuff to all the greedy
> obnoxious little brats who worship money...
> but that's another story.
> of couse, that could be "Anti-Clause"
> and the -real- Santy Claus delivers niceties
> to all the good little children, but the point is,
> not the good children , bratty children dichotomy
> but the way Santy Claus chooses his rout.
of, Santy Claus may very well be keeping detailed rekkerds
> > but there will be convolution.
> Santy Claus has one up and running at the North Pole
> and it helps him decide on his route so that he can
> do his job delivering stuff to all the greedy
> obnoxious little brats who worship money...
> but that's another story.
> of couse, that could be "Anti-Clause"
> and the -real- Santy Claus delivers niceties
> to all the good little children, but the point is,
> not the good children , bratty children dichotomy
> but the way Santy Claus chooses his rout.
and feeding thenm all in to his mainframe and deciding
just who is "good" and who is, an obnoxious little brat.
so, don't think that's not a decidable issue
cuz, it most certainly is,
only, most rekkerds are flushed on a yearly basis,
so, at least, there's -some- 'hope'
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 5:49:18 AM9/14/12
to
> of course, Santy Claus may very well be keeping detailed rekkerds
and he doesn't waste time on it playing chess...
> and feeding thenm all in to his mainframe and deciding
> just who is "good" and who is, an obnoxious little brat.
> so, don't think that's not a decidable issue
> cuz, it most certainly is,
> only, most rekkerds are flushed on a yearly basis,
> so, at least, there's -some- 'hope'
of course Santy Claus has his very own mainframe
> just who is "good" and who is, an obnoxious little brat.
> so, don't think that's not a decidable issue
> cuz, it most certainly is,
> only, most rekkerds are flushed on a yearly basis,
> so, at least, there's -some- 'hope'
and he doesn't waste time on it playing chess...
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 5:54:45 AM9/14/12
to
> of course Santy Claus has his very own mainframe
> and he doesn't waste time on it playing chess...
of course, some issues still beyond the capacity of a machine
> and he doesn't waste time on it playing chess...
but with all the time saving accrued -by- th evarious machines
Santy sleeps very well and has plenty of time to contemplate
hese weightier issues so, don't even begin to consider
that Santy Claus is a slave to the machines.
no no no no no, the machines are helful little tools,
but not even as helpful as Santy's little eleves who
pitch in while they're not baking cookies.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 5:59:49 AM9/14/12
to
> > of course Santy Claus has his very own mainframe
> > and he doesn't waste time on it playing chess...
> of course, some issues still beyond the capacity of a machine
> but with all the time saving accrued -by- the various machines
> Santy sleeps very well and has plenty of time to contemplate
> these weightier issues so, don't even begin to consider
> > and he doesn't waste time on it playing chess...
> of course, some issues still beyond the capacity of a machine
> but with all the time saving accrued -by- the various machines
> Santy sleeps very well and has plenty of time to contemplate
> that Santy Claus is a slave to the machines.
> no no no no no, the machines are helful little tools,
> pitch in while they're not baking cookies.
-anyway- not to worry
-decisions- are easy,
it's living -with- these decisions
that can be a dicey matter.
so, don't take it -too- light
or you could end up in a world of darkness...
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 6:06:17 AM9/14/12
to
> -anyway- not to worry
> -decisions- are easy,
> it's living -with- these decisions
> that can be a dicey matter.
> so, don't take it -too- light
> or you could end up in a world of darkness...
"delight yourself in YHWH and see
> -decisions- are easy,
> it's living -with- these decisions
> that can be a dicey matter.
> so, don't take it -too- light
> or you could end up in a world of darkness...
the desires of your heart"
# what you don't want to see here
# is that you 'delight' in YHWH because
# you consider that as a way to assure that
# you get all the apple pie you want,
# as this would tend to suggest that
# your true delight is in apple pie
# and not in YHWH.
like; begin to set your sights on God
and God will draw near to you, and your
hearts desires will be fulfilled.
not, "set your sights on apple pie and
say nice things about God but don't
necessarily act like you mean them"
not anti apple pie, it's just an example
of setting your sights on things of a
material nature and claiming God as
a tool to help you get them.
that is not what we would be driving towards.
and this all plays into the bits
on the flesh and the spirit.
you have to train your flesh so
that it walks along with you
and not so that it drags you
wherever it wants to go.
in part, this will come down
to a distinction in habits.
like, enforced habits as opposed to leading habits
or active habit as opposed to passive habit.
one can easily see how snorting heroin
quickly becomes a passive habit, where
-you- are drawn along on a chain by bodily
forces where, of course, this is an extreme case.
habitual exercising would be an enforced routine
where you actively have to tell your body what
to do even when it may not want to do such
a thing and it tells you so,
but there are snares there as well,
and we have our Savior to root them out.
you can -settle on- contentment,
'bliss' would be the purest form
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 6:07:44 AM9/14/12
to
so, now, you have some understanding
of tyrannical rule, and you don't like it.
so what?
does just realizing "this is tyranny"
supply you with the ability to root it out?
so, you've identified 'it' and now you
seek to mollify it and control it...
do you now become that which you detest?
yes, you do, because -your- _struggle_
is now with flesh and blood and -you-
_are_ flesh and blood.
so, you assassinate what you -think-
is your problem and in so doing, bring
that which you sought to prevent,
to the forefront.
you stab your 'friend' mercilessly,...
to what end?
...to establish autocratic government?
how is all of this related?
we shall see...
"delight yourself in YHWH and see
the desires of your heart"
[see psalm 37]
so much of this thing is wrapped up in
how you understand this statement.
what you don't want to see here
and not in YHWH.
and that would quickly be construed
as "lip service for amenities"
if you consider this from God's point of view,
God would like God to -be- the desires of
your heart and so, when you delight yourself
in YHWH you really are seeing the desires of
your heart, or at least, catching an ever
more clear view of the desires of your heart
as YHWH begins to educe from you and ellicit
in you that character that more closely resembles
the true Image of God which is where your
true happiness resides.
and...
of tyrannical rule, and you don't like it.
so what?
does just realizing "this is tyranny"
supply you with the ability to root it out?
so, you've identified 'it' and now you
seek to mollify it and control it...
do you now become that which you detest?
yes, you do, because -your- _struggle_
is now with flesh and blood and -you-
_are_ flesh and blood.
so, you assassinate what you -think-
is your problem and in so doing, bring
that which you sought to prevent,
to the forefront.
you stab your 'friend' mercilessly,...
to what end?
...to establish autocratic government?
how is all of this related?
we shall see...
"delight yourself in YHWH and see
the desires of your heart"
so much of this thing is wrapped up in
how you understand this statement.
what you don't want to see here
is that you 'delight' in YHWH because
you consider that as a way to assure that
you get all the neat things you want,
as this would tend to suggest that
your true delight is in neat things
and not in YHWH.
and that would quickly be construed
as "lip service for amenities"
if you consider this from God's point of view,
God would like God to -be- the desires of
your heart and so, when you delight yourself
in YHWH you really are seeing the desires of
your heart, or at least, catching an ever
more clear view of the desires of your heart
as YHWH begins to educe from you and ellicit
in you that character that more closely resembles
the true Image of God which is where your
true happiness resides.
and...
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 6:08:22 AM9/14/12
to
> a contrite spirit and broken heart approaches God with boldness
obviously,
God doesn't think as the 'carnal mind of man'
and by 'carnal mind of man' we'd mean,
the mind of the flesh,
the material based,
impulse driven,
consciousness emulator
so, first off, when they say;
"God's ways are 'higher' than man's ways"
there's that distinction,
God's 'mind' or consciousness
is not material based and
impulse driven.
and man's impulses do not tell him
that contrition is boldness.
but, maybe it is just that,
only the boldness of contrition
is in that one seems to go against
his -own- first glance sense of what
is correct and beneficial.
you basically come before God, empty handed, anyway,
living humbly with your God -is- a 'bold move'
especially in the face of the attitude that you
may protect your own perceived best interests,
in large part, by a display of fierceness
to drive away intruders, as it were.
you'd never think of displaying a contrite
and humble manner to intruders who wished
to possess what was 'yours'
like you'd raise your arms high
to try and scare away a bear,
and maybe that would work,
and that, to you, is boldness.
so, how could you ever see contriteness as bold?
i'm sure there are many angles to this.
obviously, The Almighty Eternal Being
is awesome and would be a Presence
commanding total respect and honor,
having nothing to fear of -you-
and yet, God -wants- for you to stand
as Holy and Blameless before God in
total Faith and Trust and ....'boldness'
but you may 'naturally' run _away_ -from- God.
and yet, there's Moses, running
-towards- the wall of fire, and
Moses was a very -humble- man.
so, this -boldness- before God
remains humble and contrite.
not -exactly- as 'the carnal mind of man'
could comprehend instinctively, nor even
at all.
there's probably more...
obviously,
God doesn't think as the 'carnal mind of man'
and by 'carnal mind of man' we'd mean,
the mind of the flesh,
the material based,
impulse driven,
consciousness emulator
so, first off, when they say;
"God's ways are 'higher' than man's ways"
there's that distinction,
God's 'mind' or consciousness
is not material based and
impulse driven.
and man's impulses do not tell him
that contrition is boldness.
but, maybe it is just that,
only the boldness of contrition
is in that one seems to go against
his -own- first glance sense of what
is correct and beneficial.
you basically come before God, empty handed, anyway,
living humbly with your God -is- a 'bold move'
especially in the face of the attitude that you
may protect your own perceived best interests,
in large part, by a display of fierceness
to drive away intruders, as it were.
you'd never think of displaying a contrite
and humble manner to intruders who wished
to possess what was 'yours'
like you'd raise your arms high
to try and scare away a bear,
and maybe that would work,
and that, to you, is boldness.
so, how could you ever see contriteness as bold?
i'm sure there are many angles to this.
obviously, The Almighty Eternal Being
is awesome and would be a Presence
commanding total respect and honor,
having nothing to fear of -you-
and yet, God -wants- for you to stand
as Holy and Blameless before God in
total Faith and Trust and ....'boldness'
but you may 'naturally' run _away_ -from- God.
and yet, there's Moses, running
-towards- the wall of fire, and
Moses was a very -humble- man.
so, this -boldness- before God
remains humble and contrite.
not -exactly- as 'the carnal mind of man'
could comprehend instinctively, nor even
at all.
there's probably more...
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 6:11:38 AM9/14/12
to
so, an obsession with freedom
drives you into bondage
you assess the wrong thing
as the emblem of your 'freedom'
and it enslaves you.
to consider that to be free
is to follow the dictates of
your body is to become mired
in the body's tendency towards
a potential energy well.
and there's a funny bit about
the children of Israel as they
are lifted out of the mud pits
of Egypt and brought out
into the desert.
it's like most of them are hopelessly
adicted to the flesh and have one eye
back in Egypt where their daily ration/fix
laid waiting and many moan and complain
as they are fed on the very simple manna
that was falling from the sky.
they get brought out into a rigorous
purification and their bodies are
rebelling and rejecting 'instruction'
i think they did go down into Egypt,
originally, in a time of famine.
they began to prosper in the land,
and then 'Pharoah' put 'chains' on them.
would you say that 'prosperity' is an evil?
certainly not.
but, to see one become trapped as slave
to their body -in- a proserous situation
can be described as, somewhat, 'ironic'
you haven't enough, you suddenly have
more than you need, and you become trapped
as a slave inside of your own flesh.
this, in part, because, for you, freedom
became solely in following the dictates
of the flesh that had seen deprivation
and then found itself without lack.
so, before you develop an obsession
with 'freedom' maybe you had best better
discover exactly what 'freedom' -is-.
and this hearkens back to dear sweet Eve
who came to be convinced that the 'tree
of the knowledge of good and evil' was
suitable "to -make- one wise"
as in, she seemed to realize that she -was not-
'wise' and this lack of knowledgeable understanding
of the thing itself made it impossible for her
to discern exactly what -it- was that she did
-not- have and, therefore, -how- to 'get -it-'.
"that will -make- me wise"
and then;
"i was tricked"
it didn't make her wise,
it made her ashamed.
so, first we have to find out what it is that
this 'wisdom' even -is- before we can properly
decide what it is that will bring it to us.
we haven't time to diffuse the bomb
-after- we've pressed the wrong switch,
and we just don't know, beforehand,
what the right switch is, and so,
we simply -must-
'listen to and heed instruction'
no, God didn't 'booby trap' the system,
in fact, it was clear,
"don't do that, do that, die"
we need 'finishing'
always did.
God's own manifold wisdom is unfiltered Truth.
A Tree of Life
we must be 'born again'
and now we can be, again.
YHWH is Savior
Wise and Free
and generous
the desires of our hearts
thanks.
drives you into bondage
you assess the wrong thing
as the emblem of your 'freedom'
and it enslaves you.
to consider that to be free
is to follow the dictates of
your body is to become mired
in the body's tendency towards
a potential energy well.
and there's a funny bit about
the children of Israel as they
are lifted out of the mud pits
of Egypt and brought out
into the desert.
it's like most of them are hopelessly
adicted to the flesh and have one eye
back in Egypt where their daily ration/fix
laid waiting and many moan and complain
as they are fed on the very simple manna
that was falling from the sky.
they get brought out into a rigorous
purification and their bodies are
rebelling and rejecting 'instruction'
i think they did go down into Egypt,
originally, in a time of famine.
they began to prosper in the land,
and then 'Pharoah' put 'chains' on them.
would you say that 'prosperity' is an evil?
certainly not.
but, to see one become trapped as slave
to their body -in- a proserous situation
can be described as, somewhat, 'ironic'
you haven't enough, you suddenly have
more than you need, and you become trapped
as a slave inside of your own flesh.
this, in part, because, for you, freedom
became solely in following the dictates
of the flesh that had seen deprivation
and then found itself without lack.
so, before you develop an obsession
with 'freedom' maybe you had best better
discover exactly what 'freedom' -is-.
and this hearkens back to dear sweet Eve
who came to be convinced that the 'tree
of the knowledge of good and evil' was
suitable "to -make- one wise"
as in, she seemed to realize that she -was not-
'wise' and this lack of knowledgeable understanding
of the thing itself made it impossible for her
to discern exactly what -it- was that she did
-not- have and, therefore, -how- to 'get -it-'.
"that will -make- me wise"
and then;
"i was tricked"
it didn't make her wise,
it made her ashamed.
so, first we have to find out what it is that
this 'wisdom' even -is- before we can properly
decide what it is that will bring it to us.
we haven't time to diffuse the bomb
-after- we've pressed the wrong switch,
and we just don't know, beforehand,
what the right switch is, and so,
we simply -must-
'listen to and heed instruction'
no, God didn't 'booby trap' the system,
in fact, it was clear,
"don't do that, do that, die"
we need 'finishing'
always did.
God's own manifold wisdom is unfiltered Truth.
A Tree of Life
we must be 'born again'
and now we can be, again.
YHWH is Savior
Wise and Free
and generous
the desires of our hearts
thanks.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 14, 2012, 6:13:43 AM9/14/12
to
> when the KGB says;
> "you wanna cigarette?"
> "just say no"
> how will you know?
> exactly
all kidding aside;
it is sort of germaine
in that even if Jesus Christ could
snort heroin and not lie cheat steal
and do murder based on body chemistry,
_God_ would never make heroin illegal,
and then place it in your habituation
anyway in order to -make- a junkie
-and- a criminal out of you,
-but-
_Pharoah_ -would-
now ask a junkie if he's free.
but he's -doing- what he -wants- to do.
and believe it or not,
many things embed themselves dIrectly
in to the physio-psychic circuitry
and rewiring your circuits -while-
in the midst of a struggle with Death
is itself an arduous task.
meaning, hard enough, in itself, without
trying to accomplish -during- a life
and death struggle but we are -always-
in a life and death struggle,
and so, looking at the extreme cases
shouldn't lead to a complacent apathy
about the more subtle hold that even
things like apple pie and popcorn can
maintain on your physio-psychic apparatus.
which is why we take measures.
to establish and maintain
pure circuitry inasmuch
as we are able.
knowing that we help is available
and God will not allow you to be taxed
beyond your ability to recover -if-
you have managed to establish
a relationship -with- your God.
these troubles and woes are not unique,
and God did not place them on you.
but God will never leave you nor forsake you,
even to the end of days.
> > when the KGB says;
> > "you wanna cigarette?"
> > "just say no"
> > how will you know?
and i wasn't meaning to pick on the KGB,
but they provide a fine examplar.
-sometimes- you get the government you deserve.
how will you know?
exactly
sure we all -want- 'freedom'
but when we mistake it for what it is not,
we fall into various snares.
study diligently to show yourself approved.
we walk towards a Crown of Life
that will never fade and so,
we never really have any
laurels upon which -to- 'rest'
but the Door is still open.
look for entrance while
you are still able.
> "you wanna cigarette?"
> "just say no"
> how will you know?
> exactly
all kidding aside;
it is sort of germaine
in that even if Jesus Christ could
snort heroin and not lie cheat steal
and do murder based on body chemistry,
_God_ would never make heroin illegal,
and then place it in your habituation
anyway in order to -make- a junkie
-and- a criminal out of you,
-but-
_Pharoah_ -would-
now ask a junkie if he's free.
but he's -doing- what he -wants- to do.
and believe it or not,
many things embed themselves dIrectly
in to the physio-psychic circuitry
and rewiring your circuits -while-
in the midst of a struggle with Death
is itself an arduous task.
meaning, hard enough, in itself, without
trying to accomplish -during- a life
and death struggle but we are -always-
in a life and death struggle,
and so, looking at the extreme cases
shouldn't lead to a complacent apathy
about the more subtle hold that even
things like apple pie and popcorn can
maintain on your physio-psychic apparatus.
which is why we take measures.
to establish and maintain
pure circuitry inasmuch
as we are able.
knowing that we help is available
and God will not allow you to be taxed
beyond your ability to recover -if-
you have managed to establish
a relationship -with- your God.
these troubles and woes are not unique,
and God did not place them on you.
but God will never leave you nor forsake you,
even to the end of days.
> > when the KGB says;
> > "you wanna cigarette?"
> > "just say no"
> > how will you know?
and i wasn't meaning to pick on the KGB,
but they provide a fine examplar.
-sometimes- you get the government you deserve.
how will you know?
exactly
sure we all -want- 'freedom'
but when we mistake it for what it is not,
we fall into various snares.
study diligently to show yourself approved.
we walk towards a Crown of Life
that will never fade and so,
we never really have any
laurels upon which -to- 'rest'
but the Door is still open.
look for entrance while
you are still able.
Graham Cooper
Sep 14, 2012, 11:58:57 PM9/14/12
to
On Sep 13, 11:54 pm, Ralph Hartley <hart...@aic.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> is confusing some people. As you know, there is no need to do any such
> thing.
>
> A function (program) E is said to "enumerate" a set S if it takes an
> integer n as input and outputs a member E[n] of S, and for every s in S
> there is a number k for which s=E(k). In other words it is a
> (mathematical)function from the integers ONTO the set.
>
> A computable enumeration of a set is a function from the integers onto
> the set that is computed by some program.
>
> Where you say "enumeration", you mean a computable enumeration, and all
> you need is an enumeration program, not an infinite list.
>
> It is fairly easy to construct programs for all the enumerations you
> need for your proof (except that some depend on calling HS, so they
> *would* be easy to construct if HS existed).
>
> This is all standard, but consider the audience.
>
> Ralph Hartley
When we say 'compute' we mean 'use some computer program' which is
always finite regardless how many list items it can handle.
but constructing this list of all-good-halters functions will not help
prove anything about halting.
the DOMAIN of functions CHANGES depending on the SPECIFICATION of the
function being examined.
A NON-SELF-REFERENTIAL HALT FUNCTION is specifiable.
It inputs a TM number and that TM's TAPE Input number
and outputs HALT or NOT-HALT (1 or 0)
*THEN* the HALT FUNCTION TERMINATES ITSELF.
-----------
It's impossible to self reference, the value of testing itself works
for both values halt or not, it is arbitrary.
Just because it is POSSIBLE to write a FUNCTION based on that program
that CONTINUES RUNNING AFTER GIVING THE ANSWER, does not mean the new
halt function and the old halt function are equivalent.
When you CHANGE THE HALT PROGRAM (THAT HALTS ITSELF AFTER ANSWERING)
YOU CHANGE THE DOMAIN AND RANGE OF THE FUNCTION because you have
INTRODUCED THE POTENTIAL OF SELF REFERENCE and the HALT FUNCTION that
can be used MID PROGRAM has a LARGER DOMAIN OF FUNCTIONS that it has
to work on.
Herc
> On 09/10/2012 11:11 PM, Barb Knox wrote:
>
> > (2) Compute an enumeration (i.e., list) of all syntactically valid
> > functions F (from positive integers to positive integers) in the
> > programming language.
>
> This makes it seem that you need to actually build infinite lists, which
>
> > (2) Compute an enumeration (i.e., list) of all syntactically valid
> > functions F (from positive integers to positive integers) in the
> > programming language.
>
> is confusing some people. As you know, there is no need to do any such
> thing.
>
> A function (program) E is said to "enumerate" a set S if it takes an
> integer n as input and outputs a member E[n] of S, and for every s in S
> there is a number k for which s=E(k). In other words it is a
> (mathematical)function from the integers ONTO the set.
>
> A computable enumeration of a set is a function from the integers onto
> the set that is computed by some program.
>
> Where you say "enumeration", you mean a computable enumeration, and all
> you need is an enumeration program, not an infinite list.
>
> It is fairly easy to construct programs for all the enumerations you
> need for your proof (except that some depend on calling HS, so they
> *would* be easy to construct if HS existed).
>
> This is all standard, but consider the audience.
>
> Ralph Hartley
When we say 'compute' we mean 'use some computer program' which is
always finite regardless how many list items it can handle.
but constructing this list of all-good-halters functions will not help
prove anything about halting.
the DOMAIN of functions CHANGES depending on the SPECIFICATION of the
function being examined.
A NON-SELF-REFERENTIAL HALT FUNCTION is specifiable.
It inputs a TM number and that TM's TAPE Input number
and outputs HALT or NOT-HALT (1 or 0)
*THEN* the HALT FUNCTION TERMINATES ITSELF.
-----------
It's impossible to self reference, the value of testing itself works
for both values halt or not, it is arbitrary.
Just because it is POSSIBLE to write a FUNCTION based on that program
that CONTINUES RUNNING AFTER GIVING THE ANSWER, does not mean the new
halt function and the old halt function are equivalent.
When you CHANGE THE HALT PROGRAM (THAT HALTS ITSELF AFTER ANSWERING)
YOU CHANGE THE DOMAIN AND RANGE OF THE FUNCTION because you have
INTRODUCED THE POTENTIAL OF SELF REFERENCE and the HALT FUNCTION that
can be used MID PROGRAM has a LARGER DOMAIN OF FUNCTIONS that it has
to work on.
Herc
Mike Delanis
Sep 15, 2012, 12:32:38 AM9/15/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
>> when the KGB says;
>> "you wanna cigarette?"
>> "just say no"
>> how will you know?
KGB => Kaptian Gerbiels Beard ?
>> "you wanna cigarette?"
>> "just say no"
>> how will you know?
>
>> exactly
>
> all kidding aside;
>
<snip goop>
> we walk towards a Crown of Life
> that will never fade and so,
> we never really have any
> laurels upon which -to- 'rest'
>
> but the Door is still open.
>
> look for entrance while
>
> you are still able.
Timothy Sutter
Sep 15, 2012, 12:46:47 AM9/15/12
to
Mike Delanis wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> >> when the KGB says;
> >> "you wanna cigarette?"
> >> "just say no"
> >> how will you know?
> KGB => Kaptian Gerbiels Beard ?
or;
> >> "you wanna cigarette?"
> >> "just say no"
> >> how will you know?
> KGB => Kaptian Gerbiels Beard ?
Komitet Gosudarstvennoj Bezopasnosti
English translation: Committee for State Security
> >> exactly
> > all kidding aside;
> <snip goop>
> > we walk towards a Crown of Life
> > that will never fade and so,
> > we never really have any
> > laurels upon which -to- 'rest'
> > but the Door is still open.
> > look for entrance while
> > you are still able.
> so you want to be the door Queen ?
Timothy Sutter
Sep 15, 2012, 12:59:25 AM9/15/12
to
"Pip, dear old chap, life is made of ever so many partings welded
together, as I may say, and one man's a blacksmith, and one's a
whitesmith, and one's a goldsmith, and one's a coppersmith.
Diwisions among such must come, and must be met as they come. If
there's been any fault at all to-day, it's mine. You and me is not
two figures to be together in London; nor yet anywheres else but
what is private, and beknown, and understood among friends. It
ain't that I am proud, but that I want to be right, as you shall
never see me no more in these clothes. I'm wrong in these clothes.
I'm wrong out of the forge, the kitchen, or off th' meshes. You
won't find half so much fault in me if you think of me in my forge
dress, with my hammer in my hand, or even my pipe. You won't find
half so much fault in me if, supposing as you should ever wish to
see me, you come and put your head in at the forge window and see
Joe the blacksmith, there, at the old anvil, in the old burnt
apron, sticking to the old work. I'm awful dull, but I hope I've
beat out something nigh the rights of this at last. And so GOD
bless you, dear old Pip, old chap, GOD bless you!"
together, as I may say, and one man's a blacksmith, and one's a
whitesmith, and one's a goldsmith, and one's a coppersmith.
Diwisions among such must come, and must be met as they come. If
there's been any fault at all to-day, it's mine. You and me is not
two figures to be together in London; nor yet anywheres else but
what is private, and beknown, and understood among friends. It
ain't that I am proud, but that I want to be right, as you shall
never see me no more in these clothes. I'm wrong in these clothes.
I'm wrong out of the forge, the kitchen, or off th' meshes. You
won't find half so much fault in me if you think of me in my forge
dress, with my hammer in my hand, or even my pipe. You won't find
half so much fault in me if, supposing as you should ever wish to
see me, you come and put your head in at the forge window and see
Joe the blacksmith, there, at the old anvil, in the old burnt
apron, sticking to the old work. I'm awful dull, but I hope I've
beat out something nigh the rights of this at last. And so GOD
bless you, dear old Pip, old chap, GOD bless you!"
Mike Delanis
Sep 17, 2012, 12:28:10 PM9/17/12
to
"Timothy Sputter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
news:50540...@lycos.com-...
> "Pip, dear old chap, life is made of ever so many partings welded
> together, as I may say, and one man's a blacksmith, and one's a
> whitesmith, and one's a goldsmith, and one's a coppersmith.
these Smiths are all related.
> together, as I may say, and one man's a blacksmith, and one's a
> whitesmith, and one's a goldsmith, and one's a coppersmith.
> Diwisions among such must come, and must be met as they come. If
> there's been any fault at all to-day, it's mine. You and me is not
> two figures to be together in London; nor yet anywheres else but
> what is private, and beknown, and understood among friends. It
> ain't that I am proud, but that I want to be right, as you shall
> never see me no more in these clothes.
> I'm wrong in these clothes.
> I'm wrong out of the forge, the kitchen, or off th' meshes. You
> won't find half so much fault in me if you think of me in my forge
> dress, with my hammer in my hand, or even my pipe. You won't find
> half so much fault in me if, supposing as you should ever wish to
> see me, you come and put your head in at the forge window and see
> Joe the blacksmith, there, at the old anvil, in the old burnt
> apron, sticking to the old work. I'm awful dull, but I hope I've
> beat out something nigh the rights of this at last. And so GOD
> bless you, dear old Pip, old chap, GOD bless you!"
The fashion of his dress could no more come in its way when he spoke these
words, than it could come in its way in Heaven. He touched me gently on the
forehead, and went out. As soon as I could recover myself sufficiently, I
hurried out after him and looked for him in the neighbouring streets; but he
was gone.
Previous: Chapter 27 (continued) Next: Chapter 28
Timothy Sutter
Sep 19, 2012, 12:41:35 AM9/19/12
to
simple problem in length contraction;
we have a double booster rocketship assembly consisting
of two identical 100 meter rocket ships connected by a
1 millimeter fiber optic communications cable of 100 meters.
100meter 100 meter
rocket X rocket Y
|========>>----------|========>>
100 meter
fiber optic cable
assuming uniform acceleration from a
launch pad on planet Xanadu to (0.99476 c)
for the rocketship assembly, what will the length
of the fiber optic cable be at this speed as
calculated by a mission control supervisor
resting on planet Xanadu.
and the answer is "c"
no, not -that- "c"
the multiple choice "c"
a. 0.24795 meters
b. 1500 meters
c. 10.227 meters <---
d. 1.3 meters
L' = L [1- v^2/c^2]^0.5
100 m [ 1 - 0.9895474576 ]^0.5
10.227 meters
and, in another imaginative construct,
we simply demand that the space between the two rocketships,
with -no- string attached, must undergo -no- lengthening nor
contraction, inasmuch as it is, perceived as vacuum.
100meter rocketA 100 meter rocket B
_________ _________
|<100 meter gap>|
===>[near light speed travel]
1meter rocketA 1 meter rocket B
_ _
|<100 meter gap>|
_______ _______ _______ _______
|<10m>| |<10 m>| |<10 m>|
__ __ __ __
|<10m>| |<10 m>| |<10 m>|
but still, when the string is attached
we still don't say that the string remains 10m
_______......_______......_______......_______
__...__...__...__
it's difficult to say;
"empty space lengthens while filled space contracts"
but the other kid wants us to take a 10 m section of 'space'
and accelerate -that- to near light speed.
sort of like saying;
we take two projectiles which are constructed
of 100 decaliter evacuated glass tubes
and as light speed is approached, the glass contracts,
but the 'space' remains the same, and so, will the
glass tubing break?
100meter rocketA 100 meter rocket B
_________ _________
|<100 meter gap>|
[[ Launch pad ]] <---stationary observer
that's you, the inert observer
doing your calculations on
rocket A and rocket B assuming
light speed travel.
you calculate a length contraction on the TWO rockets
and -no- length contraction on
the gap between the two rockets,
and suppose that the space between
the two rockets has really increased.
1meter rocketA 1 meter rocket B
_ _
|<---198 meter gap-->|
and so, you say, the gap between
the two rockets enlarged, and, if you attached
a string between the two and did the same sort
of calculation, by gum the string will snap.
but, now, you take the same rocket ships
and attach a string that is the same
length as the gap
100meter rocketA 100 meter rocket B
_________................._________
100meter string
and -now- you do your calculation
on the entire 300 meter 'frame'
and find that the entire 'frame'
has contracted to 3 meters
as observed from the launch pad.
1meter rocketA 1 meter rocket B
_..._
1 meter string
the string remains in place and does not pull away.
the material design of the rockets and how
they manage to project themselves to light
speed is wholly irrelevant,
the relevant datum, is the length contraction
that is =calculated= by an inert observer, -you-
the strength of the rope is irrelevant.
the rope does not hold the rockets
together by virtue of its strength
the rope converts the =frame=
from two 100 meter rocketc
to ONE 300 meter rocket-string-rocket assembly
and =that= is the length that
contracts in the second case.
i'm telling you Major Matt Mason =proved= this already...
we have a double booster rocketship assembly consisting
of two identical 100 meter rocket ships connected by a
1 millimeter fiber optic communications cable of 100 meters.
100meter 100 meter
rocket X rocket Y
|========>>----------|========>>
100 meter
fiber optic cable
assuming uniform acceleration from a
launch pad on planet Xanadu to (0.99476 c)
for the rocketship assembly, what will the length
of the fiber optic cable be at this speed as
calculated by a mission control supervisor
resting on planet Xanadu.
and the answer is "c"
no, not -that- "c"
the multiple choice "c"
a. 0.24795 meters
b. 1500 meters
c. 10.227 meters <---
d. 1.3 meters
L' = L [1- v^2/c^2]^0.5
100 m [ 1 - 0.9895474576 ]^0.5
10.227 meters
and, in another imaginative construct,
we simply demand that the space between the two rocketships,
with -no- string attached, must undergo -no- lengthening nor
contraction, inasmuch as it is, perceived as vacuum.
100meter rocketA 100 meter rocket B
_________ _________
|<100 meter gap>|
===>[near light speed travel]
1meter rocketA 1 meter rocket B
_ _
|<100 meter gap>|
_______ _______ _______ _______
|<10m>| |<10 m>| |<10 m>|
__ __ __ __
|<10m>| |<10 m>| |<10 m>|
but still, when the string is attached
we still don't say that the string remains 10m
_______......_______......_______......_______
__...__...__...__
it's difficult to say;
"empty space lengthens while filled space contracts"
but the other kid wants us to take a 10 m section of 'space'
and accelerate -that- to near light speed.
sort of like saying;
we take two projectiles which are constructed
of 100 decaliter evacuated glass tubes
and as light speed is approached, the glass contracts,
but the 'space' remains the same, and so, will the
glass tubing break?
100meter rocketA 100 meter rocket B
_________ _________
|<100 meter gap>|
[[ Launch pad ]] <---stationary observer
that's you, the inert observer
doing your calculations on
rocket A and rocket B assuming
light speed travel.
you calculate a length contraction on the TWO rockets
and -no- length contraction on
the gap between the two rockets,
and suppose that the space between
the two rockets has really increased.
1meter rocketA 1 meter rocket B
_ _
|<---198 meter gap-->|
and so, you say, the gap between
the two rockets enlarged, and, if you attached
a string between the two and did the same sort
of calculation, by gum the string will snap.
but, now, you take the same rocket ships
and attach a string that is the same
length as the gap
100meter rocketA 100 meter rocket B
_________................._________
100meter string
and -now- you do your calculation
on the entire 300 meter 'frame'
and find that the entire 'frame'
has contracted to 3 meters
as observed from the launch pad.
1meter rocketA 1 meter rocket B
_..._
1 meter string
the string remains in place and does not pull away.
the material design of the rockets and how
they manage to project themselves to light
speed is wholly irrelevant,
the relevant datum, is the length contraction
that is =calculated= by an inert observer, -you-
the strength of the rope is irrelevant.
the rope does not hold the rockets
together by virtue of its strength
the rope converts the =frame=
from two 100 meter rocketc
to ONE 300 meter rocket-string-rocket assembly
and =that= is the length that
contracts in the second case.
i'm telling you Major Matt Mason =proved= this already...
Timothy Sutter
Sep 19, 2012, 12:45:29 AM9/19/12
to
<fiction>
oh, by the way, "amweica" is an actual
counter-intelligent-country intimately
aligned with "america" which was first
'created' by misspelling and bureaucratic
oversight but which gained and
maintained an actual soveriegn status.
the "United States of Amweica" was first
recognized during the LB Johnson Administration
after 17 pieces of legislation were discovered
which carried the mispelled characters which
were signed into law by president Coolidge
during his term in office.
instead of recasting the legislation with
a spelling correction, the opportunity was
siezed to spin off a new country which
was granted certain specific and non-specific
rights of eminent domain and the like.
not entirely 'supranational' but not
entirely governed under the
"U.S. Constitution"
details of its make-up etc. make it possible to
operate in a manner parallel to "america" but
oftentimes quietly and unknown to even
sitting american presidents.
some of the details concerning "amweica's"
inception may be unclear as some claim that
the "oversight" first occured during the
Hoover administration and some claim
Roosevelt is to 'blame' and some claim
Nixon was the first to take notice and seize
upon the spin-off country and some claim
no 'new' country was ever spun off.
albeit, you can never get a straight
answer, on the record, from 'some' people.
maybe it exists, and maybe it doesn't,
-but- the misspelled oversight did leave
the quandary as to ultimate disposition at bay.
etc.
</fiction>
oh, by the way, "amweica" is an actual
counter-intelligent-country intimately
aligned with "america" which was first
'created' by misspelling and bureaucratic
oversight but which gained and
maintained an actual soveriegn status.
the "United States of Amweica" was first
recognized during the LB Johnson Administration
after 17 pieces of legislation were discovered
which carried the mispelled characters which
were signed into law by president Coolidge
during his term in office.
instead of recasting the legislation with
a spelling correction, the opportunity was
siezed to spin off a new country which
was granted certain specific and non-specific
rights of eminent domain and the like.
not entirely 'supranational' but not
entirely governed under the
"U.S. Constitution"
details of its make-up etc. make it possible to
operate in a manner parallel to "america" but
oftentimes quietly and unknown to even
sitting american presidents.
some of the details concerning "amweica's"
inception may be unclear as some claim that
the "oversight" first occured during the
Hoover administration and some claim
Roosevelt is to 'blame' and some claim
Nixon was the first to take notice and seize
upon the spin-off country and some claim
no 'new' country was ever spun off.
albeit, you can never get a straight
answer, on the record, from 'some' people.
maybe it exists, and maybe it doesn't,
-but- the misspelled oversight did leave
the quandary as to ultimate disposition at bay.
etc.
</fiction>
Dike Melanis
Sep 19, 2012, 2:31:29 PM9/19/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
> <fiction>
>
> oh, by the way, "amweica" is an actual
> counter-intelligent-country intimately
> aligned with "america" which was first
> 'created' by misspelling and bureaucratic
> oversight but which gained and
> maintained an actual soveriegn status.
>
not to worry, Obama is changing the national language from some dorky Queens
>
> oh, by the way, "amweica" is an actual
> counter-intelligent-country intimately
> aligned with "america" which was first
> 'created' by misspelling and bureaucratic
> oversight but which gained and
> maintained an actual soveriegn status.
>
Engrlish over to Ubonics; therefore
I have translated your poorly worded post into the new Obama's Language for
Americka;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yo awww, by da way, "amweica" iz an actual counter-intelligent-country
intimately aligned wif "america" which wuz first 'created' by misspelling
an' bureaucratic oversight but which gained an' maintained an actual
soveriegn status.
da "United States o' Amweica" wuz first recognized during da LB Johnson
Administration afta 17 pieces o' legislation wuz discovered which carried da
mispelled characters which wuz signed into law by prezident Coolidge during
his term in office.
instead o' recasting da legislation wif uh spelling correction, da
opportunity wuz siezed ta spin off uh new country which wuz granted certain
specific an' non-specific rights o' eminent domain an' da like. not entirely
'supranational' but not entirely governed under da "U.S. Constitution"
details o' its make-up etc.
make it possible ta operate in uh manner parallel ta "america" but
oftentimes quietly an' unknown ta even sitting american presidents. some o'
da details concerning "amweica's" inception may be unclear as some claim dat
da "oversight" first occured during da Hoover administration an' some claim
Roosevelt iz ta 'blame' an' some claim Nixon wuz da first ta take notice an'
seize upon da spin-off country an' some claim nahh 'new' country wuz ever
spun off. albeit, you can never git uh straight answer, on da record, from
'some' niggas. maybe it exists, an' maybe it don', -but- da misspelled
oversight did leave da quandary as ta ultimate disposition at bay. etc don't
make me shank ya!
Dike Melanis
Sep 23, 2012, 3:43:38 PM9/23/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
> simple problem in length contraction;
>
> we have a double booster rocketship assembly consisting
> of two identical 100 meter rocket ships connected by a
> 1 millimeter fiber optic communications cable of 100 meters.
>
>
>
> 100meter 100 meter
> rocket X rocket Y
> |========>>----------|========>>
> 100 meter
> fiber optic cable
>
>
>
> assuming uniform acceleration from a
> launch pad on planet Xanadu to (0.99476 c)
> for the rocketship assembly, what will the length
> of the fiber optic cable be at this speed as
> calculated by a mission control supervisor
> resting on planet Xanadu.
>
>
> and the answer is "c"
>
>
> no, not -that- "c"
> the multiple choice "c"
>
>
> a. 0.24795 meters
>
> b. 1500 meters
>
> c. 10.227 meters <---
>
> d. 1.3 meters
>
WRONG. You have not specified the orientation, dummy.
>
> we have a double booster rocketship assembly consisting
> of two identical 100 meter rocket ships connected by a
> 1 millimeter fiber optic communications cable of 100 meters.
>
>
>
> 100meter 100 meter
> rocket X rocket Y
> |========>>----------|========>>
> 100 meter
> fiber optic cable
>
>
>
> assuming uniform acceleration from a
> launch pad on planet Xanadu to (0.99476 c)
> for the rocketship assembly, what will the length
> of the fiber optic cable be at this speed as
> calculated by a mission control supervisor
> resting on planet Xanadu.
>
>
> and the answer is "c"
>
>
> no, not -that- "c"
> the multiple choice "c"
>
>
> a. 0.24795 meters
>
> b. 1500 meters
>
> c. 10.227 meters <---
>
> d. 1.3 meters
>
Dike Melanis
Sep 23, 2012, 3:44:38 PM9/23/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
<snip crap>
Graham Cooper
Sep 24, 2012, 12:35:31 AM9/24/12
to
On Sep 24, 2:25 pm, Barb Knox <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> In article <9b927dca-a205-444e...@googlegroups.com>,
> "R. Srinivasan" <sradh...@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:41:48 AM UTC+5:30, Barb Knox wrote:
> > > Many disbelievers in the unsolvability of the Halting Problem focus on
> > > the self-reference aspect of the construction in the proof as being
> > > suspect.
>
> > > For their benefit, here is a proof that avoids explicit self-reference.
>
> > Yes, this proof avoids *explicit* self-reference. But nevertheless the
> > self-reference is still present, in implicit form.
>
> > Both the statement of the halting problem and proof given below use the
> > notion of an arbitrary function,
>
> Not an arbitrary function, but an arbitrary *computable* function, which
> is a finite object (a string in some programming language).
>
ALL(f): N->N
is FOL according to these fools.
> > which is equivalent to quantifying over
> > functions. But a function, taken as an infinite set,
>
> But the Halting Problem proofs do not take functions as infinite sets
> "all at once", but as computations which produce results from inputs
> "one at a time".
ALL(f): N->N
is FOL according to these fools.
>
> > is a self-referential
> > object in the following fundamental sense. You can only define an infinite
> > set by using universal quantification, which means that the set you are
> > trying to define is also quantified over in the definition.
>
> Quantifying over all computable functions is no more problematic than
> quantifying over all finite strings, or all natural numbers.
ALL(f): N->N
is FOL according to these fools.
>
> > To avoid this self reference, and for other reasons as described in the logic
> > NAFL, a true finitist (which I will henceforth refer to as a NAFL-finitist)
> > will deny the existence of infinite sets. A function is an infinite (proper)
> > class to a NAFL-finitist and quantification over proper classes is not
> > acceptable because such quantification effectively treats proper classes as
> > sets. For the same reason, an "arbitrary function" does not exist for a
> > NAFL-finitist.
>
> > Conclusion: Turing's halting problem, and similarly, Cantor's diagonal
> > argument and Godel's incompleteness theorems, require infinitary reasoning to
> > state and prove, by the NAFL yardstick; the self-reference can be swept under
> > the carpet, but cannot be eliminated. Indeed, as BK says in her statement of
> > the halting problem below, "all versions are provably equivalent". Which
> > means that the self-reference has not really been eliminated.
>
> The various statements of the *problem* are provably equivalent, meaning
> that a solution for any one of the versions could be directly used to
> solve any of the others. That says nothing about whether the structure
> of all possible proofs of the problem's unsolvability are equivalent.
> There are both finitary proofs (the usual ones), and infinitary proofs
> (e.g., using Scott domains).
>
> > Note: NAFL does not accept Godel's coding wizardry which uses natural numbers
> > to code infinite objects like functions and quantifies over them.
>
> Gödel's coding maps natural numbers into various *finite* sequences. A
> primitive recursive function, being a computable function, can be
> represented as a *finite* item. This should not be difficult to grasp.
>
> > I had an
> > argument with Aatu Koskensilta on this matter and I still hold on to my guns.
>
> Self-assuredness is not a reliable indicator of truth (contrary to how
> juries tend to react).
>
> > Aatu's claim, in tune with conventional wisdom, is that Godel's theorems and
> > Turing's halting problem fall within finitary reasoning as embodied by PRA.
> > But nevertheless they are infinitary by the NAFL yardstick
>
> --
> ---------------------------
> | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
> | B B aa rrr b |
> | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
> | B B a a r b b | altum videtur.
> | BBB aa a r bbb |
> -----------------------------
Herc
> In article <9b927dca-a205-444e...@googlegroups.com>,
> "R. Srinivasan" <sradh...@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:41:48 AM UTC+5:30, Barb Knox wrote:
> > > Many disbelievers in the unsolvability of the Halting Problem focus on
> > > the self-reference aspect of the construction in the proof as being
> > > suspect.
>
> > > For their benefit, here is a proof that avoids explicit self-reference.
>
> > Yes, this proof avoids *explicit* self-reference. But nevertheless the
> > self-reference is still present, in implicit form.
>
> > Both the statement of the halting problem and proof given below use the
> > notion of an arbitrary function,
>
> Not an arbitrary function, but an arbitrary *computable* function, which
> is a finite object (a string in some programming language).
>
ALL(f): N->N
is FOL according to these fools.
> > which is equivalent to quantifying over
> > functions. But a function, taken as an infinite set,
>
> But the Halting Problem proofs do not take functions as infinite sets
> "all at once", but as computations which produce results from inputs
> "one at a time".
ALL(f): N->N
is FOL according to these fools.
>
> > is a self-referential
> > object in the following fundamental sense. You can only define an infinite
> > set by using universal quantification, which means that the set you are
> > trying to define is also quantified over in the definition.
>
> Quantifying over all computable functions is no more problematic than
> quantifying over all finite strings, or all natural numbers.
ALL(f): N->N
is FOL according to these fools.
>
> > To avoid this self reference, and for other reasons as described in the logic
> > NAFL, a true finitist (which I will henceforth refer to as a NAFL-finitist)
> > will deny the existence of infinite sets. A function is an infinite (proper)
> > class to a NAFL-finitist and quantification over proper classes is not
> > acceptable because such quantification effectively treats proper classes as
> > sets. For the same reason, an "arbitrary function" does not exist for a
> > NAFL-finitist.
>
> > Conclusion: Turing's halting problem, and similarly, Cantor's diagonal
> > argument and Godel's incompleteness theorems, require infinitary reasoning to
> > state and prove, by the NAFL yardstick; the self-reference can be swept under
> > the carpet, but cannot be eliminated. Indeed, as BK says in her statement of
> > the halting problem below, "all versions are provably equivalent". Which
> > means that the self-reference has not really been eliminated.
>
> The various statements of the *problem* are provably equivalent, meaning
> that a solution for any one of the versions could be directly used to
> solve any of the others. That says nothing about whether the structure
> of all possible proofs of the problem's unsolvability are equivalent.
> There are both finitary proofs (the usual ones), and infinitary proofs
> (e.g., using Scott domains).
>
> > Note: NAFL does not accept Godel's coding wizardry which uses natural numbers
> > to code infinite objects like functions and quantifies over them.
>
> Gödel's coding maps natural numbers into various *finite* sequences. A
> primitive recursive function, being a computable function, can be
> represented as a *finite* item. This should not be difficult to grasp.
>
> > I had an
> > argument with Aatu Koskensilta on this matter and I still hold on to my guns.
>
> Self-assuredness is not a reliable indicator of truth (contrary to how
> juries tend to react).
>
> > Aatu's claim, in tune with conventional wisdom, is that Godel's theorems and
> > Turing's halting problem fall within finitary reasoning as embodied by PRA.
> > But nevertheless they are infinitary by the NAFL yardstick
>
> --
> ---------------------------
> | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
> | B B aa rrr b |
> | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
> | B B a a r b b | altum videtur.
> | BBB aa a r bbb |
> -----------------------------
Herc
Timothy Sutter
Oct 1, 2012, 9:14:33 AM10/1/12
to
> > yes, the u.s. federal police would arrest
> > any mob of american citizens who stormed
> > a country's embassy in america and carried out
> > acts of violence against that embassy.
not that i care at all, but, seeing as how
there are people who are -always- looking
for an opportunity to do some sort of
'terrorist' act against U.S.Federal interests
it is -possible- that there was, actually,
a 'spontaneous' demonstration about the movie,
and some people saw all the commotion and went
home and picked up their heavy weapons and
schmoozed in to the not-so-violent movie
demonstration and did a murder.
like, you can pre-meditate murder in a matter of seconds
and there's no real evidence that anyone was planning
this libyan thing for six months.
if they were planning this thing for months,
the satellites would have probably picked up
cross talk and knew it was coming.
they could have 'planned' it on the spot in a matter
of minutes and turned the movie demonstration in
to an opportunity to do murder.
not that i care at all....
> > any mob of american citizens who stormed
> > a country's embassy in america and carried out
> > acts of violence against that embassy.
not that i care at all, but, seeing as how
there are people who are -always- looking
for an opportunity to do some sort of
'terrorist' act against U.S.Federal interests
it is -possible- that there was, actually,
a 'spontaneous' demonstration about the movie,
and some people saw all the commotion and went
home and picked up their heavy weapons and
schmoozed in to the not-so-violent movie
demonstration and did a murder.
like, you can pre-meditate murder in a matter of seconds
and there's no real evidence that anyone was planning
this libyan thing for six months.
if they were planning this thing for months,
the satellites would have probably picked up
cross talk and knew it was coming.
they could have 'planned' it on the spot in a matter
of minutes and turned the movie demonstration in
to an opportunity to do murder.
not that i care at all....
Timothy Sutter
Oct 1, 2012, 10:04:48 AM10/1/12
to
> > > yes, the u.s. federal police would arrest
> > > any mob of american citizens who stormed
> > > a country's embassy in america and carried out
> > > acts of violence against that embassy.
> not that i care at all, but, seeing as how
> there are people who are -always- looking
> for an opportunity to do some sort of
> 'terrorist' act against U.S.Federal interests
see, like, to -plan- six months ahead of time,
> > > any mob of american citizens who stormed
> > > a country's embassy in america and carried out
> > > acts of violence against that embassy.
> not that i care at all, but, seeing as how
> there are people who are -always- looking
> for an opportunity to do some sort of
> 'terrorist' act against U.S.Federal interests
to get hundreds of people to show up at an embassy,
and mull around to cause a distraction for 10 or 15
action taking 'terrorists' to go to work killing people
would have taken some considerable amount of planning
and 'secrecy' and could not preclude the possibility
that an 'operative' [u.s. intelligence operative]
on the ground in libya would be in among the planned
mulling crowd and -warn- people
that this thing was happening.
so, ask yourself, how many days was
this thing planned ahead of time?
"but it happened on sacred 911 day"
coincidence...
it still remains, that this mulling of a large number
of people probably -was- "spontaneous" and the subsequent
schmoozing in of the 10 or so actionable killers was also,
a spur of the moment pre-meditation, expecially insamuch as
there are some who are -always- on the lookout for
an opportunity to do such things.
so, -that- part needs no prior planning;
"if you see a chance, kill a federal agent"
so, what you're trying to say, is, that
this thing was planned months in advance
but this doesn't seem to be -obviously- the case,
and then you define it as a "terrorist" action
-because- of what happened.
all without being able to show that this thing
was part of a specificly blueprinted diabolical
plan that was outlined years in advance
to commemorate holy 911 day.
that you don't got...
Timothy Sutter
Oct 1, 2012, 10:09:51 AM10/1/12
to
> "but it happened on sacred 911 day"
> coincidence...
> coincidence...
> but this doesn't seem to be -obviously- the case,
> and then you define it as a "terrorist" action
> -because- of what happened.
> all without being able to show that this thing
> was part of a specificly blueprinted diabolical
> plan that was outlined years in advance
> to commemorate holy 911 day.
> that you don't got...
> and then you define it as a "terrorist" action
> -because- of what happened.
> all without being able to show that this thing
> was part of a specificly blueprinted diabolical
> plan that was outlined years in advance
> to commemorate holy 911 day.
> that you don't got...
> > not that i care at all....
i still don't like mandatory purchasing of health insurance policies,
that were never sold as a tax but morphed in to a tax by outright lies
told to the supreme court, but that's a different story.
Timothy Sutter
Oct 1, 2012, 10:34:15 AM10/1/12
to
> so, -that- part needs no prior planning;
> "if you see a chance, kill a federal agent"
> so, what you're trying to say, is, that
> this thing was planned months in advance
> "if you see a chance, kill a federal agent"
> so, what you're trying to say, is, that
> this thing was planned months in advance
> but this doesn't seem to be -obviously- the case,
#> and then you define it as a "terrorist" action
#> -because- of what happened.
and -not- by any 'plan' that you've been able to uncover
and you can't demonstrate conclusively that a considerable
number of people were -not- simply mulling around the embassy
with -no- prior knowledge of any 'planned' "terrorist action"
and that they may have been there 'for the movie'
now you can get your conspiracy together and say that
the maker of the movie was part of the grand scheme
just so the 'terrorists' could convince a large number
of people to mull around embassies so the smaller number
of 'terrorists' who were part of the "plan" could do
their thing with a diversionary crowd cover who had
no prior knowledge that they were, in fact,
a diversionary crowd.
now waste 6000 man hours trying to prove this...
and unca sam gets more and more paranoid and
starts pointing fingers at himself in the mirror...
win/win for the 'terrorists'...
Timothy Sutter
Oct 1, 2012, 10:40:56 AM10/1/12
to
> #> and then you define it as a "terrorist" action
> #> -because- of what happened.
> and -not- by any 'plan' that you've been able to uncover
> and you can't demonstrate conclusively that a considerable
> number of people were -not- simply mulling around the embassy
> with -no- prior knowledge of any 'planned' "terrorist action"
> and that they may have been there 'for the movie'
> now you can get your conspiracy together and say that
> the maker of the movie was part of the grand scheme
> just so the 'terrorists' could convince a large number
> of people to mull around embassies so the smaller number
> of 'terrorists' who were part of the "plan" could do
> their thing with a diversionary crowd cover who had
> no prior knowledge that they were, in fact,
> a diversionary crowd.
in other words, if you were going to try the entire crowd
> #> -because- of what happened.
> and -not- by any 'plan' that you've been able to uncover
> and you can't demonstrate conclusively that a considerable
> number of people were -not- simply mulling around the embassy
> with -no- prior knowledge of any 'planned' "terrorist action"
> and that they may have been there 'for the movie'
> now you can get your conspiracy together and say that
> the maker of the movie was part of the grand scheme
> just so the 'terrorists' could convince a large number
> of people to mull around embassies so the smaller number
> of 'terrorists' who were part of the "plan" could do
> their thing with a diversionary crowd cover who had
> no prior knowledge that they were, in fact,
> a diversionary crowd.
as accessories to murder, you'd have a considerable difficulty
actually proving that the entire crowd was there for the murders
and not there for some other reason, i.e. griping about
the grave insult to ...the insulted.
Mike Delanis
Oct 2, 2012, 12:47:15 AM10/2/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
>> #> and then you define it as a "terrorist" action
>> #> -because- of what happened.
>
>
>> #> -because- of what happened.
>
>
> in other words, if you were going to try the entire crowd
> as accessories to murder, you'd have a considerable difficulty
> actually proving that the entire crowd was there for the murders
> and not there for some other reason, i.e. griping about
> the grave insult to ...the insulted.
What ?? you are silly.
> as accessories to murder, you'd have a considerable difficulty
> actually proving that the entire crowd was there for the murders
> and not there for some other reason, i.e. griping about
> the grave insult to ...the insulted.
Martin Michael Musatov
Oct 2, 2012, 12:49:59 AM10/2/12
to
the point of reference there is current debate. Thanks, Martin\\\
\Musatov
Martin Michael Musatov
Oct 2, 2012, 12:50:34 AM10/2/12
to
On Oct 1, 9:47 pm, "Mike Delanis" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "Timothy Sutter" <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
Yes. Yes.
> "Timothy Sutter" <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
Timothy Sutter
Oct 2, 2012, 7:40:23 AM10/2/12
to
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > not that i care at all....
> > not that i care at all....
Martin Michael Musatov wrote:
> Had more to do with letter variable substitution than word meaning at
> the point of reference there is current debate. Thanks, Martin\\\
> \Musatov
if you ever get your head out of the dark place between your legs
> Had more to do with letter variable substitution than word meaning at
> the point of reference there is current debate. Thanks, Martin\\\
> \Musatov
that you've managed to jam it up in to, you may make a fine guest
on the Howdy Doody show, but seeing as how Howdy Doody has been
cancelled, even extracting your head from up your ass won't
make you good for much of anything at all.
there, happy now?
Timothy Sutter
Oct 3, 2012, 6:26:22 AM10/3/12
to
> ""we live in a world of constant change,
> i just got a new telephone and a new car,
> and i'm gunna watch Terminator II
> tonight on mny new teevee""
> "oy, seems like you said
> the exact same thing last year,
> i must be havin' a deja vu"
this one had puzzled me...
http://tinyurl.com/8ebjxls
=====
=
http://tinyurl.com/3nw5zjn
Published: June 13, 2001 <<----
Taliban's Eradication of Poppies Is Convulsing Opium Market
=
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/news/07iht-kabul.5.7788904.html?pagewanted=all
Published: Sunday, October 7, 2007 <<---
U.S. presses again to eradicate Afghan opium poppies
=
it was the taliban who was cutting
down and eradicating afghan opium
-before- america and britain went
in there to save the day.
and now people are saying that the
taliban funds itself on afghan
opium poppies.
the biggest junkies on the
planet are not the taliban.
convince me that the u.s. didn't go into
afghanistan with the express purpose of
-saving- the poppy fields which the
taliban was destroying.
and now it's all like they're
there to rid the world of poppies.
======
====
in June of 2001, before "911" affghany opium poppies
are being eradicated by the Taliban
and, 6 years later, -after- the U.S. military
is in afffghanystan, after "911"
opium is at bumper crop levels and U.S.
is "pressing" to eradicate opium...
the Taliban, had wiped out nearly
3/4 of the world's opium harvest
and this was convulsing the market.
and -then- the u.s. and british military
find a reason to insert itself in to affgannystan.
and -then- opium and heroin production out of
affghannystan skyrockets to new highs
and -then- u.s. military people start talking
about -how- to eradicate teh opium poppy,
because teh =Taliban= is said to be growing
it and selling it to fund their actions.
the same people who were eradicating it, successfully,
and now said to be -producing- it successfully.
but, the Taliban, had some sort of 'religious'
rationale for -eradicating- opium.
what puzzles me is, that if the u.s. actually
wanted to eradicate opium and the taliban had
already done a fine job of it with crude farming implements,
how is it, that, the presence of the military,
results in a =boom= in production?
the one answer is that the u.s. and britain didn't want
to eradicate anything but, practically, inserted themselves
in to affghannystan for the express purpose of
-saving=- the poppy.
it's confusing...
and some very highly placed folks, even on WALL street
have turned to these very powerful narcotics...
and some of these people have 'your' future in their hands...
luckily, HAL is running the show for the most part...
http://tinyurl.com/8ctahg9
====
just something that crossed me mind this morning...
it's no indictment on the world
> i just got a new telephone and a new car,
> and i'm gunna watch Terminator II
> tonight on mny new teevee""
> "oy, seems like you said
> the exact same thing last year,
> i must be havin' a deja vu"
this one had puzzled me...
http://tinyurl.com/8ebjxls
=====
=
http://tinyurl.com/3nw5zjn
Published: June 13, 2001 <<----
Taliban's Eradication of Poppies Is Convulsing Opium Market
=
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/news/07iht-kabul.5.7788904.html?pagewanted=all
Published: Sunday, October 7, 2007 <<---
U.S. presses again to eradicate Afghan opium poppies
=
it was the taliban who was cutting
down and eradicating afghan opium
-before- america and britain went
in there to save the day.
and now people are saying that the
taliban funds itself on afghan
opium poppies.
the biggest junkies on the
planet are not the taliban.
convince me that the u.s. didn't go into
afghanistan with the express purpose of
-saving- the poppy fields which the
taliban was destroying.
and now it's all like they're
there to rid the world of poppies.
======
====
in June of 2001, before "911" affghany opium poppies
are being eradicated by the Taliban
and, 6 years later, -after- the U.S. military
is in afffghanystan, after "911"
opium is at bumper crop levels and U.S.
is "pressing" to eradicate opium...
the Taliban, had wiped out nearly
3/4 of the world's opium harvest
and this was convulsing the market.
and -then- the u.s. and british military
find a reason to insert itself in to affgannystan.
and -then- opium and heroin production out of
affghannystan skyrockets to new highs
and -then- u.s. military people start talking
about -how- to eradicate teh opium poppy,
because teh =Taliban= is said to be growing
it and selling it to fund their actions.
the same people who were eradicating it, successfully,
and now said to be -producing- it successfully.
but, the Taliban, had some sort of 'religious'
rationale for -eradicating- opium.
what puzzles me is, that if the u.s. actually
wanted to eradicate opium and the taliban had
already done a fine job of it with crude farming implements,
how is it, that, the presence of the military,
results in a =boom= in production?
the one answer is that the u.s. and britain didn't want
to eradicate anything but, practically, inserted themselves
in to affghannystan for the express purpose of
-saving=- the poppy.
it's confusing...
and some very highly placed folks, even on WALL street
have turned to these very powerful narcotics...
and some of these people have 'your' future in their hands...
luckily, HAL is running the show for the most part...
http://tinyurl.com/8ctahg9
====
just something that crossed me mind this morning...
it's no indictment on the world
Timothy Sutter
Oct 3, 2012, 11:57:47 PM10/3/12
to
well, i actually watched the teevee show.
'bama just didn't look comfortable with himself.
if you look at a repeat, and turn the sound down,
'bama's eyes are twitching, like a nervous tic.
when rommey was talking, 'bama would stare down
and his eyes were twitching like he was nervous
and was in fear of being punched or something.
he really looked uncomfortable that anyone
could actually oppose him to his face.
he must be surrounded with yes men or something.
rommey did have a silly grin on his face,
but i've been accused of that,
and i say, "what silly grin?"
it -did- look like rommey was teaching 'bama
and 'bama was a reluctant stoodent.
i was thinking that exact thing during parts of it.
the format was ok and the 'moderator'
didn't get in their way too much.
it was a bit of an eye opener...
but, 4 years ago, i said that if they sent erkel up there
and had him say the things 'bama was saying, the apollo
would have booed him off the stage.
but this was different
'bama looked really uncomfortable in his own skin at times
'bama just didn't look comfortable with himself.
if you look at a repeat, and turn the sound down,
'bama's eyes are twitching, like a nervous tic.
when rommey was talking, 'bama would stare down
and his eyes were twitching like he was nervous
and was in fear of being punched or something.
he really looked uncomfortable that anyone
could actually oppose him to his face.
he must be surrounded with yes men or something.
rommey did have a silly grin on his face,
but i've been accused of that,
and i say, "what silly grin?"
it -did- look like rommey was teaching 'bama
and 'bama was a reluctant stoodent.
i was thinking that exact thing during parts of it.
the format was ok and the 'moderator'
didn't get in their way too much.
it was a bit of an eye opener...
but, 4 years ago, i said that if they sent erkel up there
and had him say the things 'bama was saying, the apollo
would have booed him off the stage.
but this was different
'bama looked really uncomfortable in his own skin at times
Mike Delanis
Oct 6, 2012, 12:25:05 AM10/6/12
to
"Martin Michael Musatov" <musatovat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:346de9c0-039b-4a10...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
Martin
Oct 7, 2012, 2:35:56 AM10/7/12
to
On Oct 5, 9:25 pm, "Mike Delanis" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "Martin MichaelMusatov" <musatovatattdot...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:346de9c0-039b-4a10...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
Pawn Stars?
> "Martin MichaelMusatov" <musatovatattdot...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:346de9c0-039b-4a10...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
0 new messages