Godless Linguistics!
Michael L. Siemon
In article <00002182...@msn.com>, 2DA...@msn.com (Gail Davis) wrote:
+To all t.o. readers,
+The FACT is, God Almighty created all
+languages complete when he confused mankind's original language as
+punishment for our transgression at the tower of Babel. But the
+athiest/lingusts don't want this mentioned in public settings...
+Therefore, join me in the campaign to have a balanced and fair
+treatment in public education. All english teachers should be
+required to include Babelism as a valid alternate theory to
+Linguisticism, whenever the origins of the English language is
+discussed.
Pretty good troll, but I mark you down for failure to fail in your
grammar and spelling, and you have *far* too few CAPITAL LETTERS!
(I believe the subtlety of your remark about God creating confusion
will leave most readers puzzled; you really must avoid giving your
readers any provocation to thinking, or you will defeat the purpose
...)
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
Awaslah jabberwok adek, rahang mengigit, kuku tangkap;
Awaslah pun burong jubjub, dan ferumi bandersenap.
Gail Davis
To all t.o. readers,
Clearly, we can see the very structure of our civilization crumbling
around our ears. Sexual perversion runs rampant as our once-proud
moral culture slides ever closer to the gaping maw of oblivion. One
need only turn on the TV to witness ample evidence of the degradation
of our current Godless society, slipping closer to destruction with
the wanton disregard for proper diction, and the torrid abomination
of corrupted grammar!
Why, just listen to the "music" of the young people these days. Such
trash! The words slur together (when they can be understood at all)
into a putrid mush of incomplete sentences and split infinitives.
It's awful. And it has been PROVEN to induce young people to commit
acts of violence, theft, and unwed pregnancy. And surely, it is no
mere coincidence that this dire threat to the fabric of our very
civilization coincides exactly with the indoctrination of our young
people with Godless LINGUISTICS in the public schools.
Our public schools have turned away from the source of Truth, to
teach our children that our sacred English language has descended
from other languages. The poor impressionable youngsters are taught
AS A FACT that English words have certain "root words", even though
this is only a theory. The FACT is, God Almighty created all
languages complete when he confused mankind's original language as
punishment for our transgression at the tower of Babel. But the
athiest/lingusts don't want this mentioned in public settings,
because it goes against their FAITH, and forces them to face their
own accountability. So they have BANNED the teaching of Babelism,
because they are afraid that it might expose the weakness of their
own linguistic ideas. Is this fair? I don't think so. It goes
against all that America stands for.
Therefore, join me in the campaign to have a balanced and fair
treatment in public education. All english teachers should be
required to include Babelism as a valid alternate theory to
Linguisticism, whenever the origins of the English language is
discussed.
Oh, of course we can expect opposition from the entrenched vested
interests. They will point to certain similarities (i.e. "mother",
"madre" "mater") as evidence of the relatedness of various languages.
But this is a complete misinterpretation of the evidence. Clearly
it is more economical for God to use similar phonic structures to
designate similar meanings. Therefore, the existence of such
similarities PROOVES that the various languages must have had the
same author.
Second, a language is a complex thing. The odds that some first
speaker could randomly string together a complex series of sounds,
and then multiply this by the odds that someone else would UNDERSTAND
him, and the probablity could be calculated to be less than 1 in
10^500. That's a one with five hundred zero's. A statistical
impossibility. Obviously, the first language must have a designer:
God.
Third, there is NO evidence that transitional languages ever existed.
What use is half a language? A noun without verbs conveys no
meaning! Sure, there is middle and old- English. But these are
ENGLISH! A complete nontransitional language. We do not deny that
micro-lingustics can happen, but this process can create only
DIALECTS. There is NO EVIDENCE that a series of random
micro-lingustic events can create a WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE. I'll beleive
in Macro-linguistics when I see a video tape of a child growing up in
an Eskimo village suddenly become fluent in Armenian! It takes A LOT
MORE FAITH to beleive in athieistic linguisticism than the truth of
Babelism.
So join me in the crusade: Babelism must be included in the public
school English curriculum.
There are only two theories which explain the origin of our language:
Babelism and Linguisticism. Shouldn't they BOTH be given a fair
hearing?
Thank you.
*********************
Visit a Classroom
*********************
wf...@enter.net
On 24 Dec 96 02:21:13 -0800, 2DA...@msn.com (Gail Davis) wrote:
>To all t.o. readers,
>
>Clearly, we can see the very structure of our civilization crumbling
>around our ears.
masterful!
Steven Carr
on 24 Dec 96 02:21:13 -0800, 2DA...@msn.com (Gail Davis) wrote :
>To all t.o. readers,
<skip>
>Third, there is NO evidence that transitional languages ever existed.
> What use is half a language? A noun without verbs conveys no
>meaning!
Of course. It is so obvious when you explain it like that. Who could
buy the silly theory that an English-speaking mother could give birth
to a baby born speaking Russian?
ksjj ,just by himself, proves that language must have been designed to
be the eloquently powerful, precise and accurate tool for conveying
information that he uses, rather than a random string of meaningless
words, selected by chance.
>So join me in the crusade: Babelism must be included in the public
>school English curriculum.
>There are only two theories which explain the origin of our language:
> Babelism and Linguisticism. Shouldn't they BOTH be given a fair
>hearing?
Certainly convinced me. How could I be so blind?
.
Steven Carr NW England ca...@dial.pipex.com
Newcastle United 5 Manchester United 0
Elmer Bataitis
Gail Davis wrote:
Some wonderful and trenchent critique snipped. This was one for the
files!
Thank you Gail. I will visit a classroom soon.
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
******************************************************************
Gail Davis
Milo King (notr...@parody.com) writes:
>Carl (cs...@madeup.com) writes:
>>Sorry. The word "woodpecker" is simply far to complex to develop
>>naturaly, as has been PROVED to you many times before.
>>Learn the model, Lingui-babbler. Instead of showwing you're own
>>ingorance.
>>Besides, no one has shown yet how a complete language could come from
>> a dead gaggle of GRUNTS.
>>see ya'
>>The Bible says "Babelism", not Godless Linguistics
>>In the beginning was the WORD,
>>and the WORD was with God,
>>and the WORD was God.
>Carl, you're an idiot. It has been explained to you over and over
that >alinguigenesis is not a necessary part of Linguistic theory.
>Milo
>"If the name says Smucker's, it has to be good"
_Dwight D. Eisenhauer
>()()()() ()()()() M M I L OOO
> 0 0 M M M M I L O O
> oo M M M I LLL OOO
> ( )
> \---------/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, Milo. Carl's right! Linguistics paints a picture of languages
increasing in complexity over time. But the second law of
thermodynamics says that the universe must move toward INCREASING
ENTROPY, which means that languages should become LESS complex over
time, not more. Thus the Linguisticist THEORY of language origins is
FALSIFIED.
English did not develop from any earlier tongue. It was created
complete and perfect by God at the tower of Babel.
Join the crusade! English teachers should be required to include
Babelism in their curriculum whenever the origins on our sacred
language is discussed. It's the American way!
Thanks,
*****************
Visit a Classroom
*****************
Ed LaBonte
>Our public schools have turned away from the source of Truth, to
>teach our children that our sacred English language has descended
>from other languages. The poor impressionable youngsters are taught
>AS A FACT that English words have certain "root words", even though
>this is only a theory. The FACT is, God Almighty created all
>languages complete when he confused mankind's original language as
>punishment for our transgression at the tower of Babel. But the
>athiest/lingusts don't want this mentioned in public settings,
>because it goes against their FAITH, and forces them to face their
>own accountability. So they have BANNED the teaching of Babelism,
>because they are afraid that it might expose the weakness of their
>own linguistic ideas. Is this fair? I don't think so. It goes
>against all that America stands for.
Here, here! Proof of the fact of divine creation of the English language is
the total lack of any transitional languages. Dutch and German are not
transitional languages but completely seperate "species" in themselves. Sure,
evolutionists will point to Anglo-Saxon texts as transitional but even
assuming that they are true ancestors to modern English (which I am not
willing to grant being a 'young earth' linguistic creationist), there is no
evidence that Anglo-Saxon itself is connected to any other language.
Ed LaBonte e...@ziplink.net
http://www.ziplink.net/~ewl/
Gail Davis
Ned Conrad writes: (donke...@parody.com) writes:
>Gail Davis writes:
>>All English teachers should be REQUIRED to teach Biblical Babelism
>>whenever the origins of our language are discussed in English class.
>>For too long have the athiest/linguists been permitted to teach AS A
>>FACT that English words have certain "root words", when this is
>>only a THEORY!
>Indeed, you speak truly. For whilst I and my most esteemed comrades
>have been unearthing startling evidence that the Enlgish language must
>be at least 280 million years old, supported by the world's foremost
>reputable laboratory of philological analysis, and by the GREAT Dr.
>Nidely Helmstead (may he rest in peace), the powers-that-be continue to
> smear my very integrity by refusing to acknowledge the fact that I have
> discovered fossilized letters in the carboniferous coal deposits of
>Pennsylvania.
>Thus far, we have discovered all the vowels (except "e", though
>we have found several schwa's) and even many startling and majestic
>consonants. We had hoped to have assembled a complete alphabet by
>Christmas. Still, the findings are ridiculed and suppressed, despite the
>fact that they comprise the most important find in the history of the
>Universe, and will duly enshrine my vissage upon the hallowed annals
>of greatness.
>Crossectional microscopic analysis clearly shows the existence of
>sarifs in many letters, despite the rediculous assertions by slimy balls
>of putrid muck (who shall remain nameless, but know who they are, and
>I suspect, know I am right) that they are mere "concretions". They
>wouldn't know evidence if it spat in their face!
>Ned
I believe you completely! You are the second greatest man to ever have
walked the earth. Your findings PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that the
Linguistic theory of common descent of languages is poo poo.
Since there are ONLY two possible explanations for the origins of
the English language, Linguisticism and Babelism, and since your
findings that the English language is at least 280 million years old
thoroughly FALSIFIES the Linguisticist THEORY, then it can clearly be
seen to provide strong support for the proposition that English was
created by God about 5000 years ago. Bravo!
Thanks
********************
Visit a Classroom
********************
TFarnon
>>Here, here! Proof of the fact of divine creation of the English language
is
the total lack of any transitional languages. Dutch and German are not
transitional languages but completely seperate "species" in themselves.
Sure,
evolutionists will point to Anglo-Saxon texts as transitional but even
assuming that they are true ancestors to modern English (which I am not
willing to grant being a 'young earth' linguistic creationist), there is
no
Guess somebody never lived in Germany close to Holland and Belgium...I
still can barely tell Dutch, Flemish, and the Plattdeutsch I learned as a
child apart. But then, I suppose none of those languages are
related...And, I suppose when I took Old Norse and Old English the reason
I never had to study was because some god blessed me, and not that my
knowledge of English and German, two related languages, allowed me to
"wing it" on a regular basis...I suppose I'd better not mention that my
Latin classes were what made learning Russian grammar easy (same sounds,
differently shaped letters)...
Landis D. Ragon
2DA...@msn.com (Gail Davis) wrote:
>To all t.o. readers,
>
>Clearly, we can see the very structure of our civilization crumbling
>around our ears. Sexual perversion runs rampant as our once-proud
>moral culture slides ever closer to the gaping maw of oblivion. One
>need only turn on the TV to witness ample evidence of the degradation
>of our current Godless society, slipping closer to destruction with
>the wanton disregard for proper diction, and the torrid abomination
>of corrupted grammar!
>
I hereby nominate this post (this entire thread, in fact) for the T.O
post of the year!
Landis
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory
Gail Davis
TFarnon (tfa...@aol.com) writes:
Yes, there are similar sounds and structures in various languages.
This only PROVES that they all had the same author: God!
What you are forgetting, here, is that, according to the Godless
Linguisticist THEORY, languages must change over time through a
random sequence of improper useage and mispronunciation. According
to this THEORY, some of these mispronunciations will have a selective
advantage for the user, increasing his likelihood of attaining
communication, thereby being passed on to subsequent generations.
BUT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE! It is obvious that mispronunciation and
improper useage can only serve to HINDER communication! Therefore,
it is impossible that such could provide a selective advantage for
the user. Godless linguistics is a RELIGION.
It takes A LOT MORE FAITH to believe in godless linguistics than to
cling to. . . uh, I mean believe, that God in his divine and absolute
love and mercy created English and all other languages to prevent
people from working together to build a tower that could reach unto
Heaven.
Thanks,
Roger Ivie
In article <00002182...@msn.com>, 2DA...@msn.com (Gail Davis) writes:
> No, Milo. Carl's right! Linguistics paints a picture of languages
> increasing in complexity over time. But the second law of
> thermodynamics says that the universe must move toward INCREASING
> ENTROPY, which means that languages should become LESS complex over
> time, not more. Thus the Linguisticist THEORY of language origins is
> FALSIFIED.
No, the second law says that the OVERALL structure of the universe tends to
become less complex. Thus, while language becomes more complex, TV sitcoms
become less complex to compensate.
--
-------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie | "Since then, it's been my policy to view the
iv...@cc.usu.edu | Internet...as an electronic asylum filled with
http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ | babbling loonies" -- Mike Royko
Paris
Gail Davis <2DA...@msn.com> wrote in article <00002182...@msn.com>...
I'll take it that you're not Trolling, so I can have a laugh.
> Clearly, we can see the very structure of our civilization crumbling
> around our ears.
Where do you live. The people you consider to be crumbling might think you
are something as well.
> Sexual perversion runs rampant as our once-proud
Prude, Bigot whichever.
> moral culture slides ever closer to the gaping maw of oblivion. One
> need only turn on the TV to witness ample evidence of the degradation
> of our current Godless society, slipping closer to destruction with
> the wanton disregard for proper diction, and the torrid abomination
> of corrupted grammar!
Where is that deemed a sin in the bible.
If you insist on inventing your own moral code, then please piss off and do
it elsewhere.
> Why, just listen to the "music" of the young people these days. Such
> trash!
Prude, bigot and now stupid.
What do you like? Elvis?
> The words slur together (when they can be understood at all)
Add, deaf to the rank of properties.
> into a putrid mush of incomplete sentences and split infinitives.
> It's awful. And it has been PROVEN to induce young people to commit
> acts of violence, theft, and unwed pregnancy.
Please die in a horrible road accident.
> And surely, it is no mere coincidence that this dire threat to the
fabric of our very
> civilization coincides exactly with the indoctrination of our young
> people with Godless LINGUISTICS in the public schools.
Ahh, a psychopathic English teacher.
> Our public schools have turned away from the source of Truth, to
> teach our children that our sacred English language has descended
> from other languages.
Ancient Briton, Norse, Celtic (all 3 kinds), Latin, French blah blah blah
blah....
If you came from England, you'd be able to visit the sites where Middle
English is carved on stones.
> The poor impressionable youngsters are taught
> AS A FACT that English words have certain "root words", even though
> this is only a theory. The FACT is, God Almighty created all
> languages complete when he confused mankind's original language as
> punishment for our transgression at the tower of Babel.
No. The FACT is that the English language of which you speak is less than
100 years old.
> But the athiest/lingusts don't want this mentioned in public settings,
> because it goes against their FAITH, and forces them to face their
> own accountability. So they have BANNED the teaching of Babelism,
> because they are afraid that it might expose the weakness of their
> own linguistic ideas. Is this fair? I don't think so. It goes
> against all that America stands for.
You are the one who is un-constitutional. You hold back one of the greatest
countries ever to have emerged
in the history of the world. You make your country a laughing stock.
Thankfully you and yours will soon be dead.
Rest snipped.
Well whoever you are. Nice troll, and it got my blood pressure up for a
while.
Paris
Michael McBroom
Gail Davis wrote:
> No, Milo. Carl's right! Linguistics paints a picture of languages
> increasing in complexity over time. But the second law of
> thermodynamics says that the universe must move toward INCREASING
> ENTROPY, which means that languages should become LESS complex over
> time, not more. Thus the Linguisticist THEORY of language origins is
> FALSIFIED.
Gail, if you're gonna spout off about something, jumping in with both
feet the way you've done on this topic, it is encumbent upon you, I
would think, to get your facts strait.
I am a student of "godless linguistics" (thank the gods it is godless,
too!), and I can assure you that your above statements are totally and
absolutely false. We have examples of numerous languages which have
simplified over time. There is even a general principle we cite to
justify simplifications when they are observed: it's called the
principle of ease of articulation. It has nothing to do with the 2nd
law of thermodynamics, which has to do with energy flow, not
communication.
> English did not develop from any earlier tongue. It was created
> complete and perfect by God at the tower of Babel.
Complete, utter nonsense, and pure, unbridled chauvanism on your part.
Please explain to us, then, why the English in Boewulf is
incomprehensible to current day speakers of English? Why is the English
that Chaucer spoke still not totally clear to us? And why is it that
even Shakespeare words, spoken and written in modern English, often seem
uncomprehensible to many people today? Could it be because it has
changed, hmmm?
Finally, please show me one *documented* example -- just one -- of
modern English that existed prior to the time we linguists say it
appeared. If English has remained unchanged since Babel, then surely
there must be reams of examples of it in the ancient texts. Just one.
> Join the crusade! English teachers should be required to include
> Babelism in their curriculum whenever the origins on our sacred
> language is discussed. It's the American way!
You, madam, are a loon.
Regards,
Michael McBroom
CSUF Linguistics
Don Cates
Michael McBroom <bo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Gail Davis wrote:
>> No, Milo. Carl's right! Linguistics paints a picture of languages
>> increasing in complexity over time. But the second law of
>> thermodynamics says that the universe must move toward INCREASING
>> ENTROPY, which means that languages should become LESS complex over
>> time, not more. Thus the Linguisticist THEORY of language origins is
>> FALSIFIED.
[snip]
>would think, to get your facts strait.
>I am a student of "godless linguistics"
[big snip][Sorry, but I *had* to leave the above two lines in (B-)]
>You, madam, are a loon.
Nope. She's a troll. And you've been hooked and boated. It remains to
be seen if you'll be gutted and filleted, dropped in the live well, or
sportingly released.
-------------- Don Cates --------
"Conversation would be vastly improved by the constant
use of four simple words: I do not know." - Andre Maurois
The best thing about mistakes is the joy they bring others.
William H. Jefferys
I believe we have another winner!
Congratulations, Gail. Many Loki points to you.
Bill
====
In article <32C9E4...@earthlink.net>,
Michael McBroom <mic...@mcbrooms.com> wrote:
#Gail Davis wrote:
#
#> No, Milo. Carl's right! Linguistics paints a picture of languages
#> increasing in complexity over time. But the second law of
#> thermodynamics says that the universe must move toward INCREASING
#> ENTROPY, which means that languages should become LESS complex over
#> time, not more. Thus the Linguisticist THEORY of language origins is
#> FALSIFIED.
#
#Gail, if you're gonna spout off about something, jumping in with both
#feet the way you've done on this topic, it is encumbent upon you, I
#would think, to get your facts strait.
#
#I am a student of "godless linguistics" (thank the gods it is godless,
#too!), and I can assure you that your above statements are totally and
#absolutely false. We have examples of numerous languages which have
#simplified over time. There is even a general principle we cite to
#justify simplifications when they are observed: it's called the
#principle of ease of articulation. It has nothing to do with the 2nd
#law of thermodynamics, which has to do with energy flow, not
#communication.
#
#> English did not develop from any earlier tongue. It was created
#> complete and perfect by God at the tower of Babel.
#
#Complete, utter nonsense, and pure, unbridled chauvanism on your part.
#Please explain to us, then, why the English in Boewulf is
#incomprehensible to current day speakers of English? Why is the English
#that Chaucer spoke still not totally clear to us? And why is it that
#even Shakespeare words, spoken and written in modern English, often seem
#uncomprehensible to many people today? Could it be because it has
#changed, hmmm?
#
#Finally, please show me one *documented* example -- just one -- of
#modern English that existed prior to the time we linguists say it
#appeared. If English has remained unchanged since Babel, then surely
#there must be reams of examples of it in the ancient texts. Just one.
#
#> Join the crusade! English teachers should be required to include
#> Babelism in their curriculum whenever the origins on our sacred
#> language is discussed. It's the American way!
#
#You, madam, are a loon.
#
#Regards,
#
#Michael McBroom
#CSUF Linguistics
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
E-mail: bill[a]clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
wf...@enter.net
>I am a student of "godless linguistics" (thank the gods it is godless,
>too!), and I can assure you that your above statements are totally and
>absolutely false. We have examples of numerous languages which have
>simplified over time.
well if you were TRULY a scientist you would know that the speed of
linguistics is SLOWING DOWN!! yes this has been conclusively
demonstrated. just think of how FAST someone speaking a foreign
language seems to sound then go to the southern US and see how slow
they speak there...besides that includes the bible belt and so god has
used their language to prove he exists or they would all be immoral
happy new year!
Steven Carr
on 1 Jan 1997 16:29:22 GMT, bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H.
Jefferys) wrote :
>I believe we have another winner!
This is only day 1 of 1997. There is a long, hard, battle ahead before
a winner can be declared.
>Congratulations, Gail. Many Loki points to you.
She certainly has piled up the points, but will she still be leading
the field by end-December 1997?
.
Steven Carr NW England ca...@dial.pipex.com
Newcastle United 7 Tottenham Hotspur 1
William H. Jefferys
In article <5aei8r$5...@weld.news.pipex.net>,
Steven Carr <ca...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
#on 1 Jan 1997 16:29:22 GMT, bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H.
#Jefferys) wrote :
#
#>I believe we have another winner!
#
#This is only day 1 of 1997. There is a long, hard, battle ahead before
#a winner can be declared.
#
#>Congratulations, Gail. Many Loki points to you.
#
#She certainly has piled up the points, but will she still be leading
#the field by end-December 1997?
She's the last winner of 1996. Note the date of posting of
Michael's contribution:
Subject: Re: Godless Linguistics!
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 23:13:51 -0500
Need I say more?
Bill
Christopher Carrell
>
>>I believe we have another winner!
>
>
>
Who cares? A beer at the Panda's Thumb is the only real goal.
Chris
Paul J. Gans
Christopher Carrell (c...@pandora.bio.purdue.edu) wrote:
Ah yes. This is true. But folks *can* cash in their
Loki points for free beer. Which puts Gail ahead of
many of us.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Mark Isaak
In article <32ca9655.5144769@news> wf...@enter.net writes:
>well if you were TRULY a scientist you would know that the speed of
>linguistics is SLOWING DOWN!! yes this has been conclusively
>demonstrated. just think of how FAST someone speaking a foreign
>language seems to sound then go to the southern US and see how slow
>they speak there...besides that includes the bible belt and so god has
>used their language to prove he exists or they would all be immoral
Furthermore, new languages such as Esperanto and ASL have been created by
humans. That proves that languages are a product of intelligent design.
--
Mark Isaak "Have you seen this side? Look also
is...@aurora.com at the other." - Marcus Aurelius
Paul J. Gans
William H. Jefferys (bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu) wrote:
: In article <5aei8r$5...@weld.news.pipex.net>,
: Steven Carr <ca...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
: #on 1 Jan 1997 16:29:22 GMT, bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H.
: #Jefferys) wrote :
: #
: #>I believe we have another winner!
: #
: #This is only day 1 of 1997. There is a long, hard, battle ahead before
: #a winner can be declared.
: #
: #>Congratulations, Gail. Many Loki points to you.
: #
: #She certainly has piled up the points, but will she still be leading
: #the field by end-December 1997?
:
: She's the last winner of 1996. Note the date of posting of
: Michael's contribution:
:
: Subject: Re: Godless Linguistics!
: Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 23:13:51 -0500
:
: Need I say more?
Besides, a little-known rule concerning Loki-point winners
is that there can be many number 1's. That's one of the
features of Loki-points.
The rule is #237(3)a, written just last week, curiously
prior to Gail Davis' posting. It says that a Loki-point
winner is any person, AI, or robot which two certifiably
human posters say is the winner.
The definition of "human poster" is too complex to reproduce
here. Suffice it to say that we'll know one when we see one.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Micheal Keane
In article <E3Fvx...@aurora.com>, Mark Isaak <is...@aurora.com> wrote:
>In article <32ca9655.5144769@news> wf...@enter.net writes:
>>well if you were TRULY a scientist you would know that the speed of
>>linguistics is SLOWING DOWN!! yes this has been conclusively
>>demonstrated. just think of how FAST someone speaking a foreign
>>language seems to sound then go to the southern US and see how slow
>>they speak there...besides that includes the bible belt and so god has
>>used their language to prove he exists or they would all be immoral
>
>Furthermore, new languages such as Esperanto and ASL have been created by
>humans. That proves that languages are a product of intelligent design.
Don't forget Ebonics.... =-)
--
Micheal Keane(ae...@u.washington.edu) Join the Church of Last Thursday!
Sending unsolicited email this address implies that you wish to use ERU's
free service to kill you at an unspecified time, place and manner.
I am the sole determiner of what is unsolicited. On-topic replies welcomed.
Richard Harter
To be sure, we haven't seen one yet, but we have every confidence that
we'll recognize one when we see one.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
When I do not question that which I know to be true it is
then that I prepare myself to be deceived.
Paul J. Gans
Mark Isaak (is...@aurora.com.EditThis) wrote:
: In article <32ca9655.5144769@news> wf...@enter.net writes:
: >well if you were TRULY a scientist you would know that the speed of
: >linguistics is SLOWING DOWN!! yes this has been conclusively
: >demonstrated. just think of how FAST someone speaking a foreign
: >language seems to sound then go to the southern US and see how slow
: >they speak there...besides that includes the bible belt and so god has
: >used their language to prove he exists or they would all be immoral
:
: Furthermore, new languages such as Esperanto and ASL have been created by
: humans. That proves that languages are a product of intelligent design.
On the other hand there is Cobol...
John Wilkins
Daniel Howell
In article <5alvhl$4...@news-central.tiac.net>,[snip]
>
>>The rule is #237(3)a, written just last week, curiously
>>prior to Gail Davis' posting. It says that a Loki-point
>>winner is any person, AI, or robot which two certifiably
>>human posters say is the winner.
>
>>The definition of "human poster" is too complex to reproduce
>>here. Suffice it to say that we'll know one when we see one.
>
>
>To be sure, we haven't seen one yet, but we have every confidence that
>we'll recognize one when we see one.
I have some GIFs of magnifcent human posters, and only the inherent bias
of every other poster to this group prevents them from recognizing the
truth of this, and leads them to deny my place as the one true arbiter
of all knowledge [1].
Daniel
dd...@aber.ac.uk
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~ddh95
[1] And the fact I've never shown them to anyone of course [2]
[2] Which isn't surprising seeing as they don't exist....
Elmer Bataitis
Steve Carson-Rowland wrote:
> Steve
> [News backlog from my ISP is 1-3 days. To contact me in a hurry, forget
> the internet, try carrier pigeon]
> Steve Carson-Rowland
The net is growing faster and faster (which, of course, explains why
it's slower and slower;-)
I keep getting an image from an old movie with 2 "doomsday" computers
trying to connect to each other..."The Bernson Project"????....or
something like that. The net strikes me as humans attempting to do the
same thing.
Steve Carson-Rowland
Gail Davis <2DA...@msn.com> writes
>To all t.o. readers,
>
>Clearly, we can see the very structure of our civilization crumbling
>need only turn on the TV to witness ample evidence of the degradation
>of our current Godless society, slipping closer to destruction with
>the wanton disregard for proper diction, and the torrid abomination
>of corrupted grammar!
>
>It's awful. And it has been PROVEN to induce young people to commit
>civilization coincides exactly with the indoctrination of our young
>people with Godless LINGUISTICS in the public schools.
>
>teach our children that our sacred English language has descended
>this is only a theory. The FACT is, God Almighty created all
>languages complete when he confused mankind's original language as
>because it goes against their FAITH, and forces them to face their
>own accountability. So they have BANNED the teaching of Babelism,
>because they are afraid that it might expose the weakness of their
>own linguistic ideas. Is this fair? I don't think so. It goes
>against all that America stands for.
>
>treatment in public education. All english teachers should be
>required to include Babelism as a valid alternate theory to
>Linguisticism, whenever the origins of the English language is
>discussed.
>
>Oh, of course we can expect opposition from the entrenched vested
>interests. They will point to certain similarities (i.e. "mother",
>"madre" "mater") as evidence of the relatedness of various languages.
> But this is a complete misinterpretation of the evidence. Clearly
>it is more economical for God to use similar phonic structures to
>designate similar meanings. Therefore, the existence of such
>similarities PROOVES that the various languages must have had the
>same author.
>
>Second, a language is a complex thing. The odds that some first
>speaker could randomly string together a complex series of sounds,
>and then multiply this by the odds that someone else would UNDERSTAND
>him, and the probablity could be calculated to be less than 1 in
>10^500. That's a one with five hundred zero's. A statistical
>impossibility. Obviously, the first language must have a designer:
>God.
>
>Third, there is NO evidence that transitional languages ever existed.
> What use is half a language? A noun without verbs conveys no
>meaning! Sure, there is middle and old- English. But these are
>ENGLISH! A complete nontransitional language. We do not deny that
>micro-lingustics can happen, but this process can create only
>DIALECTS. There is NO EVIDENCE that a series of random
>micro-lingustic events can create a WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE. I'll beleive
>in Macro-linguistics when I see a video tape of a child growing up in
>an Eskimo village suddenly become fluent in Armenian! It takes A LOT
>MORE FAITH to beleive in athieistic linguisticism than the truth of
>Babelism.
>
>So join me in the crusade: Babelism must be included in the public
>school English curriculum.
>
>There are only two theories which explain the origin of our language:
> Babelism and Linguisticism. Shouldn't they BOTH be given a fair
>hearing?
>
Only just spotted this one. It gets my vote for 1996.
We're not worthy, we're not worthy.
Steve
[News backlog from my ISP is 1-3 days. To contact me in a hurry, forget
the internet, try carrier pigeon]
Steve Carson-Rowland (st...@kirra.demon.co.uk - kirra is one of the best
surfing beaches in the world, it's where I'd like to be @ )
James C. Harrison
Elmer Bataitis ("nyli...@frontiernet.net/nylicence"@aol.com) wrote:
: Steve Carson-Rowland wrote:
: > Steve
: > [News backlog from my ISP is 1-3 days. To contact me in a hurry, forget
: > the internet, try carrier pigeon]
: > Steve Carson-Rowland
: The net is growing faster and faster (which, of course, explains why
: it's slower and slower;-)
: I keep getting an image from an old movie with 2 "doomsday" computers
: trying to connect to each other..."The Bernson Project"????....or
: something like that. The net strikes me as humans attempting to do the
: same thing.
It was the Forbin Project, of course; but the computers in that movie
possessed superhuman intelligence while the internet is an attempt to
find out if something interesting happens if a critical mass of
mental mediocrity and inaccurate information is assembled.
hexis--who can't be accused of not doing his part in this great
experiment in communal stupidity
Elmer Bataitis
James C. Harrison wrote:
>
> Elmer Bataitis ("nyli...@frontiernet.net/nylicence"@aol.com) wrote:
> : Steve Carson-Rowland wrote:
> : I keep getting an image from an old movie with 2 "doomsday" computers
> : trying to connect to each other..."The Bernson Project"????....or
> : something like that. The net strikes me as humans attempting to do the
> : same thing.
>
> It was the Forbin Project, of course;...
Thank you! Thank you. Isn't the mind a wonderful thing?? How I got
"Berson Project" from Corbin Berson and "Forbin Project" is one of the
mysteries of memory. Well, at least I was in an associated semantic area
;-)
> but the computers in that movie
> possessed superhuman intelligence while the internet is an attempt to
> find out if something interesting happens if a critical mass of
> mental mediocrity and inaccurate information is assembled.
Well, considering the inaccurate workings of most human minds, it's a
wonder that we function at all.
> hexis--who can't be accused of not doing his part in this great
> experiment in communal stupidity
Me too.