: The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
: I live in 'the real world',
You live in a world where you make up meanings for the words
people use, and ignore when they explicitly point out that you're
using a meaning that they are not.
: In the real world, they use the words "earth" and "habitable" in the
: same sentence.
And they explicitly say what they mean by those words.
And "habitable zone" means the temperature is right.
And "super-earth" means "a few times more massive th an earth".
No more, no less. And they are very explicit about that word use.
: If you don't get it,
I get it. You make up meanings, and ignore the meaning people explicitly state.
On Fri, 04 May 2012 06:17:30 GMT, Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote:
> The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
>: If you don't get it,
>I get it. You make up meanings, >and ignore the meaning people explicitly state.
And he does it to keep people responding and responding and responding and
extending the threads that he's crossposted to the same five groups further
and further, to try to mess up and overpower any actual on-topic stuff that
might be going on in those groups. r.a.sf.w is fairly high-volume in these
latter days, but I think at least two of the others are over 50% Starmaker
say-anything-at-all-regardless-of-meaning-just-to-get-people-yelling-at-you
threads.
He's not gonna change his style; he's not gonna learn from corrections, or
at least isn't going to give any visible sign that he has done so. He's gonna
keep saying that people said things they didn't say, and keep saying that
words mean things they don't, and keep asking really stupid questions. No
matter how educational we try to get.
Just sayin'.
Dave
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
In article <0563065c-1c31-4be9-9241-c158d5a0c...@l7g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> said:
> It's been said that "When you fight with a pig you both get dirty
> - but the pig likes it." Realize that 'Starmaker', 'Androcles',
> and oriel36 are pigs; they don't have a point to make, they quite
> possibly don't actually hold the positions they put forward
> here. But they know that doing so winds people up, and they enjoy
> the attention.
I agree with you regarding the first two, but if Oriel's faking it
he's certainly fooled me.
Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> Oriel, etal have *never* budged one iota from their ignorance, dialog
>> is impossible, and attempting it a fool's errand. You might as well
>> try to get a thoughtful, considered response from ELIZA. [Now there's
>> a thought: Could these trolls be someone's NLP project?]
>> Unless you like talking to bots, ignore them.
>Where the devil are my slippers?
Under the couch, just like last time.
Dave
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
On May 4, 5:01 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <0563065c-1c31-4be9-9241-c158d5a0c...@l7g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> said:
> > It's been said that "When you fight with a pig you both get dirty
> > - but the pig likes it." Realize that 'Starmaker', 'Androcles',
> > and oriel36 are pigs; they don't have a point to make, they quite
> > possibly don't actually hold the positions they put forward
> > here. But they know that doing so winds people up, and they enjoy
> > the attention.
> I agree with you regarding the first two, but if Oriel's faking it
> he's certainly fooled me.
Since these 'people' (I'm still not convinced they aren't bots) are
playing a different 'game' then the rest of us, responding to and
engaging them is pointless from our standpoint, all they want is to
get responses.
To give an on topic quote:
'The only winning move is not to play." - WHOPR (Wargames, 1983)
> On May 4, 5:01 am, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> > In article <0563065c-1c31-4be9-9241-c158d5a0c...@l7g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
> > Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> said:
> > > It's been said that "When you fight with a pig you both get dirty
> > > - but the pig likes it." Realize that 'Starmaker', 'Androcles',
> > > and oriel36 are pigs; they don't have a point to make, they quite
> > > possibly don't actually hold the positions they put forward
> > > here. But they know that doing so winds people up, and they enjoy
> > > the attention.
> > I agree with you regarding the first two, but if Oriel's faking it
> > he's certainly fooled me.
> Since these 'people' (I'm still not convinced they aren't bots) are
> playing a different 'game' then the rest of us, responding to and
> engaging them is pointless from our standpoint, all they want is to
> get responses.
> To give an on topic quote:
> 'The only winning move is not to play." - WHOPR (Wargames, 1983)
> pt
I have to laugh at that one,that is a sci-fi movie about modeling and
mechanical reasoning taking control when human reasoning is required -
really good movie considering how the world nearly lost its mind
following computer modeling of the world burning up and climate.
In article <c5269f1a-1fa4-4724-8162-eeef6d330...@n1g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
> You are fine,everything is under control and common sense is about
> to make a comeback.
That reminds me: you still haven't told us about this "Fraud Against
Taxpayers Act" and how it's going to do, um, whatever it is that you
think it's going to do. In detail, please.
On May 4, 7:25 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <c5269f1a-1fa4-4724-8162-eeef6d330...@n1g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
> > You are fine,everything is under control and common sense is about
> > to make a comeback.
> That reminds me: you still haven't told us about this "Fraud Against
> Taxpayers Act" and how it's going to do, um, whatever it is that you
> think it's going to do. In detail, please.
> -- wds
You are sweet,blurring the lines between a sci-fi forum and relativity
was simply the best possible outcome for everyone as there is really
no distinction between empirical groupthink and science fiction.
The best thing about it is that astronomy and terrestrial sciences are
back on a safe footing now that relativity will fade into that
dreamscape world you have got going over there in the sci-fi forum and
good luck to you.
In article <2a3951a4-03f4-4e7b-b375-dc276f811...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
> (William December Starr) wrote:
>> That reminds me: you still haven't told us about this "Fraud
>> Against Taxpayers Act" and how it's going to do, um, whatever it
>> is that you think it's going to do. In detail, please.
> You are sweet,blurring the lines between a sci-fi forum and
> relativity was simply the best possible outcome for everyone as
> there is really no distinction between empirical groupthink and
> science fiction.
> The best thing about it is that astronomy and terrestrial sciences
> are back on a safe footing now that relativity will fade into that
> dreamscape world you have got going over there in the sci-fi forum
> and good luck to you.
Please tell us about this "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act" and how it's
going to do, um, whatever it is that you think it's going to do. In
detail, please.
> On May 4, 7:25 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> > In article <c5269f1a-1fa4-4724-8162-eeef6d330...@n1g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> > oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
> > > You are fine,everything is under control and common sense is about
> > > to make a comeback.
> > That reminds me: you still haven't told us about this "Fraud Against
> > Taxpayers Act" and how it's going to do, um, whatever it is that you
> > think it's going to do. In detail, please.
> > -- wds
> You are sweet,blurring the lines between a sci-fi forum and relativity
> was simply the best possible outcome for everyone as there is really
> no distinction between empirical groupthink and science fiction.
> The best thing about it is that astronomy and terrestrial sciences are
> back on a safe footing now that relativity will fade into that
> dreamscape world you have got going over there in the sci-fi forum and
> good luck to you.
In this post we can see how the bot's strategy, when presented a post
it can't respond to, is to neither research the problem nor admit
defeat. Rather, it posts a non-sequitur to change the subject.
Again, the Oriel bot isn't engaging in discussion, but is merely
simulating it.
> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
> : I live in 'the real world',
> You live in a world where you make up meanings for the words
> people use, and ignore when they explicitly point out that you're
> using a meaning that they are not.
> : In the real world, they use the words "earth" and "habitable" in the
> : same sentence.
> And they explicitly say what they mean by those words.
> And "habitable zone" means the temperature is right.
> And "super-earth" means "a few times more massive th an earth".
> No more, no less. And they are very explicit about that word use.
> : If you don't get it,
> I get it. You make up meanings,
> and ignore the meaning people explicitly state.
I ask you
"What does "the habitual zone" mean to you?"
The operative word in this sentence is "you".
What does "the habitual zone" mean to You?
You!
Instead, you give the *usual* song and dance act, posting wiki
link...everybody knows
by now you're just hiding behind...textbooks.
I gave you My definition, I asked for Your definition, not some other
user on a user editied website.
I gave you my analysis of the 'scientific community news', and asked for
yours. You're just another
Gregory Oliver Hines.
Stop hiding behind textbooks...who is the real Wayne Troop? You couldn't
possibly be passed the age of 9 and a half.
: The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
: I ask you
: "What does "the habitual zone" mean to you?"
: The operative word in this sentence is "you". : What does "the habitual zone" mean to You? : You!
: Instead, you give the *usual* song and dance act, posting wiki link..
Nonsense. I answered your question directly, with my own words.
Here, I'll refresh your memory:
Message-ID: <1336069...@sheol.org>
It's a phrase you just made up, to pretend you mistook habitual for habitable.
And that's what "the habitual zone" means to me.
No wikipedia. Nobody else's definition. What it means to me.
Here's my own words for "the habitable zone". It's the zone around
a star where liquid water is possible if a planet of about earth's mass
were there.
: I gave you my analysis of the 'scientific community news', and asked
: for yours.
And I gave it. Here, I'll refresh your memory.
Message-ID: <1336084...@sheol.org>
: The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
: But the "implying" is done by the 'scientific community' in the media. : "The most interesting of the planets found in stars habitable zones
: are called super-Earths, the rocky or water-covered bodies with a mass
: of up to 10 times that of Earth."
: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-earth-sister-crosshairs.html
Note that the cite you reference refers only to composition and mass,
not habitability when explaining what super-earths are. And your cite
also shows that not all super-earths occur in habitable zones. Finally,
it makes no mention or implication of "going to get an earth" as you
claimed upthread.
My own analysis of your cite, in my own words, no wikipedia references.
Of course, I didn't really need to refresh your memory, since
you're only pretending to forget what I said in order to pretend
I said things I didn 't. SOP for you. But eh, so it goes.
> In article <2a3951a4-03f4-4e7b-b375-dc276f811...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
> > (William December Starr) wrote:
> >> That reminds me: you still haven't told us about this "Fraud
> >> Against Taxpayers Act" and how it's going to do, um, whatever it
> >> is that you think it's going to do. In detail, please.
> > You are sweet,blurring the lines between a sci-fi forum and
> > relativity was simply the best possible outcome for everyone as
> > there is really no distinction between empirical groupthink and
> > science fiction.
> > The best thing about it is that astronomy and terrestrial sciences
> > are back on a safe footing now that relativity will fade into that
> > dreamscape world you have got going over there in the sci-fi forum
> > and good luck to you.
> Please tell us about this "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act" and how it's
> going to do, um, whatever it is that you think it's going to do. In
> detail, please.
> -- wds
Here is what you do,the full moon is especially clear over the next
few days and you can see the reflected light of Serenitatis crater and
all the other craters that can be seen as the light of the Sun
reflects off the surface collisions of meteors in antiquity -
You want to wreck your minds with a spinning moon then be my guest,as
far as I am concerned it looks like an admission ticket into
groupthink by leaving the ability to reason as an individual at the
door.
In article <7edc009e-3b07-474e-8ce3-9eff3abb3...@i8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
> @panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> Please tell us about this "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act" and how
>> it's going to do, um, whatever it is that you think it's going to
>> do. In detail, please.
> Here is what you do,the full moon is especially clear over the
> next few days and you can see the reflected light of Serenitatis
> crater and all the other craters that can be seen as the light of
[...]
> Good luck to you now.
Please tell us about this "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act" that you
talked about in article
<6e764c64-4f1f-40c4-be9f-8718beb03...@c28g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
and how it's going to do, um, whatever it is that you think it's
going to do. In detail, please.
> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
> : I ask you
> : "What does "the habitual zone" mean to you?"
> : The operative word in this sentence is "you".
> : What does "the habitual zone" mean to You?
> : You!
> : Instead, you give the *usual* song and dance act, posting wiki link..
> Nonsense. I answered your question directly, with my own words.
> Here, I'll refresh your memory:
> Message-ID: <1336069...@sheol.org>
> It's a phrase you just made up,
> to pretend you mistook habitual for habitable.
> And that's what "the habitual zone" means to me.
> No wikipedia. Nobody else's definition. What it means to me.
> Here's my own words for "the habitable zone". It's the zone around
> a star where liquid water is possible if a planet of about earth's mass
> were there.
> : I gave you my analysis of the 'scientific community news', and asked
> : for yours.
> And I gave it. Here, I'll refresh your memory.
> Message-ID: <1336084...@sheol.org>
> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
> : But the "implying" is done by the 'scientific community' in the media.
> : "The most interesting of the planets found in stars habitable zones
> : are called super-Earths, the rocky or water-covered bodies with a mass
> : of up to 10 times that of Earth."
> :http://phys.org/news/2012-04-earth-sister-crosshairs.html
> Note that the cite you reference refers only to composition and mass,
> not habitability when explaining what super-earths are. And your cite
> also shows that not all super-earths occur in habitable zones. Finally,
> it makes no mention or implication of "going to get an earth" as you
> claimed upthread.
> My own analysis of your cite, in my own words, no wikipedia references.
> Of course, I didn't really need to refresh your memory, since
> you're only pretending to forget what I said in order to pretend
> I said things I didn 't. SOP for you. But eh, so it goes.
Wayne, I'm curious.
What compels you to continue responding to this troll? It should get
about as much response as the Islam guy, and the ones begging us to
visit 123maza.
: Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com>
: What compels you to continue responding to this troll?
Personality flaw. Work in progress. I recommend killfiling by thread,
but haven't the moral fiber to practice that precept. Yet.
I can occasionally crawl back on the wagon.
> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
> : I ask you
> : "What does "the habitual zone" mean to you?"
> : The operative word in this sentence is "you".
> : What does "the habitual zone" mean to You?
> : You!
> : Instead, you give the *usual* song and dance act, posting wiki link..
> Nonsense. I answered your question directly, with my own words.
> Here, I'll refresh your memory:
> Message-ID: <1336069...@sheol.org>
> It's a phrase you just made up,
> to pretend you mistook habitual for habitable.
> And that's what "the habitual zone" means to me.
> No wikipedia. Nobody else's definition. What it means to me.
> Here's my own words for "the habitable zone". It's the zone around
> a star where liquid water is possible if a planet of about earth's mass
> were there.
"liquid water"? Do you go to the grovery store, and 'in your own words ask the guy,
"Can I have a bottle of..liguid water?"
I mean, in your own words' you use the phrase "liquid water"?
> : I gave you my analysis of the 'scientific community news', and asked
> : for yours.
> And I gave it. Here, I'll refresh your memory.
> Message-ID: <1336084...@sheol.org>
> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
> : But the "implying" is done by the 'scientific community' in the media.
> : "The most interesting of the planets found in stars habitable zones
> : are called super-Earths, the rocky or water-covered bodies with a mass
> : of up to 10 times that of Earth."
> : http://phys.org/news/2012-04-earth-sister-crosshairs.html
> Note that the cite you reference refers only to composition and mass,
> not habitability when explaining what super-earths are. And your cite
> also shows that not all super-earths occur in habitable zones. Finally,
> it makes no mention or implication of "going to get an earth" as you
> claimed upthread.
Okay, I see they lost you somewhere...
super-Earths
Do you know what the word "Earth" means?
Earth; The planet on which we live, the third planet from the sun in the solar system.
super-Earths; means....The planet on which we live, but...bigger.
If you go to McDonalds and ask for a super-size Coke, it's still a Coke, but ...bigger.
super-Earths means, a planet with people on it, it's still Earth, but bigger!
Any other meaning you find on a wiki or a Nasa website is fradulent. A lie.
Come on already, are you guys pulling my leg?
When you think Earth, you think People, not...liquid water.
No clear minded person thinks of Earth as habitable with ...liquid water.
Earth is about...People.
SETI is not trying to pick up radio waves from....liquid water.
I'm getting thirsty...
I need some liquid water...
I'm afraid to go to the store and ask the guy "Do you have any liquid water?"
<starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Earth; The planet on which we live, the third planet from the sun in the solar system.
>super-Earths; means....The planet on which we live, but...bigger.
Or maybe very strong, wears underwear outside of one's clothes, has a
cape, x-ray vision and flies.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
>>> super-Earths; means....The planet on which we live, but...bigger.
>> Or maybe very strong, wears underwear outside of one's clothes, has
>> a cape, x-ray vision and flies.
>The last of those being because it doesn't change the underwear often
>enough?
>-- wds (not even wearing it on the outside will save you forever)
Well, I know that earth has flies. But I don't think Superman's
underwear has a fly.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> In article <7edc009e-3b07-474e-8ce3-9eff3abb3...@i8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> said:
> > @panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >> Please tell us about this "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act" and how
> >> it's going to do, um, whatever it is that you think it's going to
> >> do. In detail, please.
> > Here is what you do,the full moon is especially clear over the
> > next few days and you can see the reflected light of Serenitatis
> > crater and all the other craters that can be seen as the light of
> [...]
> > Good luck to you now.
> Please tell us about this "Fraud Against Taxpayers Act" that you
> talked about in article
> <6e764c64-4f1f-40c4-be9f-8718beb03...@c28g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
> and how it's going to do, um, whatever it is that you think it's
> going to do. In detail, please.
> -- wds
I read a great book about 9 years ago about how to stop smoking and it
works on the principle that the only reason a person smokes is to kill
the craving created by the previous cigarette so what a smoker deals
with is breaking a vicious cycle,it worked as I went from 60 a day to
nothing by just taking a different view of things.
The empirical welfare society works off a variation on the same
principle,you can't get a job in science unless you obey the people
who are marking your papers so when you get a job you have no
incentive to do anything but continue the vicious cycle.Smoking,at
least years ago, was always presented as having an outward appearance
of sophistication while the addicts were choking and coughing their
way through life yet a simple change in perspective turns everything
around,all the imagined difficulties and withdrawl symptoms disappear
once you spot the con and deal with it.Astronomy isn't difficult,it
needs no maths other than familiarity with time and space on scales
that are greater than humans normally deal with and once you begin to
breathe this clear air,a lot of the older discoveries make sense and
new opportunities open up.
You can't use taxpayer's money to promote ideas that were silly to
begin with so if a short reminder from an external agency is needed to
clear out reckless assertions and conclusions then so be it and
nothing is more certain than the herd will run a mile from global
warming/human control over planetary temperatures if they are held
legally responsible for promoting this to students and the wider
population.
