Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Deception by omission
132 views
Skip to first unread message
Charles Fields
Sep 27, 2012, 5:06:16 PM9/27/12
to
I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
Boikat
Sep 27, 2012, 5:29:42 PM9/27/12
to
On Sep 27, 4:10 pm, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
If you are implying that something is being willfully omitted, would
> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
you care to state what is beig omitted in an attempt to deceive people
into accepting the ToE as a valid scientific theory? Or is this one
of those "I know something you don't know" things?
Boikat
UC
Sep 27, 2012, 5:36:09 PM9/27/12
to
On Sep 27, 5:10 pm, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
The old Perry Mason trick:
> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
"What if I told you that right outside is a witness who saw you leave
the home of the deceased shortly before his body was discovered?"
Rolf
Sep 27, 2012, 5:38:57 PM9/27/12
to
"Charles Fields" <chipf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67f65cde-360c-4e68...@googlegroups.com...
>I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at
>first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here.
>Nice try.
>
Maybe you are asking too much of t.o
>first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here.
>Nice try.
>
Maybe you should not expect the whole truth from t.o.
After all, the whole truth is not the purpose of t.o.
Do you have any piece of truth to offer?
I don't have any, except to urge you keep searching, like I have done for
seventy years.
You know, there is a whole lot of 'truth' out there, if you try.
Truth is a relative term, the best you could ask for would be facts - and
interpretations thereof.
There is indeed a lot of that there if you care to look. Don't you know it?
Science has been working hard on the subject for about 160 years, in all the
fields. Geology, palaeontology, biology and all the rest of the scientific
palette; surely there must be something there for you too? Start with
Google, Wikipedie, and follow the lead, there are lots of those!
Books, publications, much more than t.o. could ever provide you with.
Admn, you can also use our own brains. That's what I always have done. It
has shown me the way by following the holy spirit of truth.
I wish you the best of luck.
Or maybe you'd rather listen to Ray Martinez? He is the guardian of truth at
t.o., he knows all the truth there is. He knows it all, to such a degree
that he doesnt' even have to bother with science at all.
He doesn't ask for truth; he's got truth. He is a Christian too. At least in
his own opinion.
I don't have to tell you that I don't agree with him.
Rolf
UC
Sep 27, 2012, 5:52:46 PM9/27/12
to
Mike Painter
Sep 27, 2012, 5:59:32 PM9/27/12
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:06:16 -0700 (PDT), Charles Fields
<chipf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
Thank you for telling us you saw through our little plot.
<chipf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
If there was one.
The EAC, which does not exist has been notified of our failure and
you are just imagining the black helicopters.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Sep 27, 2012, 10:31:16 PM9/27/12
to
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:40:00 PM UTC+1, UC wrote:
> The old Perry Mason trick:
>
> "What if I told you that right outside is a witness who saw you leave
> the home of the deceased shortly before his body was discovered?"
Arrest the man! He is the murderer!
> The old Perry Mason trick:
>
> "What if I told you that right outside is a witness who saw you leave
> the home of the deceased shortly before his body was discovered?"
UC
Sep 27, 2012, 10:43:00 PM9/27/12
to
On Sep 27, 10:34 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
No, you dope! It's the maid!
*Hemidactylus*
Sep 28, 2012, 6:15:15 AM9/28/12
to
On 09/27/2012 05:06 PM, Charles Fields wrote:
> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
Uh oh! He's on to us. Games up.
> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
*Hemidactylus*
Sep 28, 2012, 6:16:21 AM9/28/12
to
chris thompson
Sep 28, 2012, 7:06:06 AM9/28/12
to
Burkhard
Sep 28, 2012, 8:45:12 AM9/28/12
to
Irish confidence trickster. I did not know though that the was posting
on TO, but hen, the may have deceived us about his identity. It's the
sort of thing Brian O'Mission would do.
alyc...@btinternet.com
Sep 28, 2012, 9:02:48 AM9/28/12
to
On Friday, 28 September 2012 13:49:57 UTC+1, Burkhard wrote:
> It was a simple typo, he meant: Deception by O'Mission, the infamous
> Irish confidence trickster. I did not know though that the was posting
> on TO, but hen, the may have deceived us about his identity. It's the
> sort of thing Brian O'Mission would do.
I remember him; used to work by night. Nocturnal O'Mission, they used to call him. Bit of a dickwad, to be honest.
> It was a simple typo, he meant: Deception by O'Mission, the infamous
> Irish confidence trickster. I did not know though that the was posting
> on TO, but hen, the may have deceived us about his identity. It's the
> sort of thing Brian O'Mission would do.
Mike Dworetsky
Sep 28, 2012, 9:35:00 AM9/28/12
to
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Sep 28, 2012, 9:55:20 AM9/28/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 2:39:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> >> Arrest the man! He is the murderer!
> >
> > No, you dope! It's the maid!
>
> Neh! It's always the butler.
It is not. Part of the joke that's overlooked of spoiling someone's
> >> Arrest the man! He is the murderer!
> >
> > No, you dope! It's the maid!
>
> Neh! It's always the butler.
enjoyment of a puzzle murder mystery by telling them before they get
to the end "The butler did it" is that it is, on the whole, /cheating/
to have a servant be the murderer; servants aren't characters in that
sort of story, they're furniture. And as such, they don't have scope
to possess an interesting motive, either. They just work there.
Of course, in a realistic story, household servants are human beings,
and may even have motives to murder. (I read a collection of seriously
old murder stories with a very disappointing tendency to have a servant
merely turn homicidally insane, having no realistic motive, for the
solution.) But - well, an old-fashioned country house or country
village murder is liable to hurl servant characters at you by the
half-dozen, serving dinner or making the bed or making up the fire
in the grate, and really it's more useful in a book where you may be
already struggling to keep track of the eccentric neighbours and
disgraced and estranged younger sons and so forth to be /sure/ that
you don't need to keep a list of below-stairs names that is liable
to be even longer than the roll of people who /do/ have some reasonable
right to present themselves as possible culprits, as well.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Sep 28, 2012, 9:59:31 AM9/28/12
to
have been impolite or even imprecise - if I think someone's playing the
fool intentionally then I like to do the same. So, are there any
particular areas where you feel that you were ill served by omission?
Also, there's a lot of omission, and much worse, in creationism.
Karel
Sep 28, 2012, 10:55:18 AM9/28/12
to
Regards,
Karel
James Beck
Sep 28, 2012, 12:57:59 PM9/28/12
to
Kermit
Sep 28, 2012, 1:30:48 PM9/28/12
to
On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
that was true.
It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
correctly, all ASCII text.
Didn't you read it?
Kermit
Bob Casanova
Sep 28, 2012, 2:33:46 PM9/28/12
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:29:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Boikat
<boi...@bellsouth.net>:
He won't be back.
YADBP, IMHO. HTH.
(This post provided for UC as an aid to Googling skills,
although one of the terms may require actual thought, based
on content.)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Boikat
<boi...@bellsouth.net>:
YADBP, IMHO. HTH.
(This post provided for UC as an aid to Googling skills,
although one of the terms may require actual thought, based
on content.)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
jillery
Sep 28, 2012, 3:53:02 PM9/28/12
to
Paul J Gans
Sep 28, 2012, 4:27:46 PM9/28/12
to
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. ?You had me at first, I must admit. ?But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. ?Nice try.
>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
>that was true.
>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
>correctly, all ASCII text.
>Didn't you read it?
you did not address his subtle point implied by his sentence in
line 4258 of his most recent post. Shame on you.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Frank J
Sep 28, 2012, 4:42:05 PM9/28/12
to
On 27 Sep, 17:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
Nice try to YOU. You had an opportunity to tell "the rest of the
> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
story" but you chose to post and run instead.
If/when you return I will have lots of questions about your "theory,"
and will give you plenty of opportunities to defend it on its own
merits.
John S. Wilkins
Sep 29, 2012, 1:08:43 AM9/29/12
to
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Michael Siemon
Sep 29, 2012, 3:23:20 AM9/29/12
to
In article <1kr6v5j.9c1e2f1pvld3kN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
up with as the picture? Or did you need to apply some plugin filter
to make any sense of it?
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me
> > > at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth
> > > here. Nice try.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
> > that was true.
> >
> > It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
> > correctly, all ASCII text.
> >
> > Didn't you read it?
> >
> My computer recognised it as a PhotoShop File...
And after applying Curves and Shadows/Highlights, what did you come
> Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me
> > > at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth
> > > here. Nice try.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
> > that was true.
> >
> > It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
> > correctly, all ASCII text.
> >
> > Didn't you read it?
> >
> My computer recognised it as a PhotoShop File...
up with as the picture? Or did you need to apply some plugin filter
to make any sense of it?
John S. Wilkins
Sep 29, 2012, 4:51:41 AM9/29/12
to
Klaus Hellnick
Sep 29, 2012, 5:57:19 AM9/29/12
to
I smell dirty socks.
Klaus
"Charles Fields" wrote in message
news:67f65cde-360c-4e68...@googlegroups.com...
Klaus
"Charles Fields" wrote in message
news:67f65cde-360c-4e68...@googlegroups.com...
Walter Bushell
Sep 29, 2012, 9:01:29 AM9/29/12
to
In article <28rb68tolb93fjmqi...@4ax.com>,
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> YADBP
Pandaing to the cognoscenti, in a way unbearable.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> YADBP
Pandaing to the cognoscenti, in a way unbearable.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
*Hemidactylus*
Sep 29, 2012, 11:12:18 AM9/29/12
to
On 09/29/2012 09:01 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <28rb68tolb93fjmqi...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> YADBP
>
> Pandaing to the cognoscenti, in a way unbearable.
I feel bamboozled.
> In article <28rb68tolb93fjmqi...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> YADBP
>
> Pandaing to the cognoscenti, in a way unbearable.
Bob Casanova
Sep 29, 2012, 2:26:34 PM9/29/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>>
>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
>>that was true.
>>
>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>>
>>Didn't you read it?
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>>
>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
>>that was true.
>>
>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>>
>>Didn't you read it?
>I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
I want your disk drive.
Bob Casanova
Sep 29, 2012, 2:32:03 PM9/29/12
to
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:01:29 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article <28rb68tolb93fjmqi...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> YADBP
>Pandaing
Town in Cambodia, right?
> to the cognoscenti, in a way unbearable.
Well, it's not findable via Google (which I noted would
probably be the case), but the first two words are "Yet
Another", and the last three are a common term for the type
of one-time poster who started the thread.
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article <28rb68tolb93fjmqi...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> YADBP
>Pandaing
> to the cognoscenti, in a way unbearable.
probably be the case), but the first two words are "Yet
Another", and the last three are a common term for the type
of one-time poster who started the thread.
jillery
Sep 30, 2012, 1:08:50 AM9/30/12
to
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:26:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>>>
>>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
>>>that was true.
>>>
>>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
>>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>>>
>>>Didn't you read it?
>
>>I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>
>I want your disk drive.
It could be I'm still using dialup :)
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>>>
>>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
>>>that was true.
>>>
>>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
>>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>>>
>>>Didn't you read it?
>
>>I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>
>I want your disk drive.
J.J. O'Shea
Sep 30, 2012, 11:16:39 AM9/30/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:45:12 -0400, Burkhard wrote
(in article
<f2c2140f-0b9f-45f5...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
Oy! He was an Englishman, _pretending_ to be Irish!
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
(in article
<f2c2140f-0b9f-45f5...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Walter Bushell
Sep 30, 2012, 1:30:32 PM9/30/12
to
In article <s9fe68ldd27rmj71m...@4ax.com>,
It didn't work, as I did not have enough available disk space. IIRC,
even inserting a new floppy would not have given me enough disk space.
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
> ><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at
> >>> first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth
> >>> here. Nice try.
> >>
> >>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
> >>that was true.
> >>
> >>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
> >>correctly, all ASCII text.
> >>
> >>Didn't you read it?
>
> >I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>
> I want your disk drive.
Yes. I remember clicking on an icon labeled "Download the Internet".
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
> ><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at
> >>> first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth
> >>> here. Nice try.
> >>
> >>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
> >>that was true.
> >>
> >>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
> >>correctly, all ASCII text.
> >>
> >>Didn't you read it?
>
> >I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>
> I want your disk drive.
It didn't work, as I did not have enough available disk space. IIRC,
even inserting a new floppy would not have given me enough disk space.
Bob Casanova
Sep 30, 2012, 2:04:43 PM9/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 01:08:50 -0400, the following appeared
the space to store it. I repeat, I want that drive (or a
clone). ;-)
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:26:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>>><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>>>>
>>>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
>>>>that was true.
>>>>
>>>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
>>>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you read it?
>>
>>>I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>>
>>I want your disk drive.
>It could be I'm still using dialup :)
It's not the path or the time; it's the fact that you have
>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:26:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>>><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>>>>
>>>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
>>>>that was true.
>>>>
>>>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
>>>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you read it?
>>
>>>I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>>
>>I want your disk drive.
>It could be I'm still using dialup :)
the space to store it. I repeat, I want that drive (or a
clone). ;-)
Smoley
Sep 30, 2012, 4:59:51 PM9/30/12
to
On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:59:58 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:10:00 PM UTC+1, Charles Fields wrote:
>
> > I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting.
>
> > You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not
>
> > getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>
>
>
> I don't remember deceiving you by omission or otherwise, although I may
>
> have been impolite or even imprecise - if I think someone's playing the
>
> fool intentionally then I like to do the same. So, are there any
>
> particular areas where you feel that you were ill served by omission?
>
The theory of evolution does seem to hide the fact that random accidents are mostly useless to attain a purpose... except when the purpose is to create cancer.
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:10:00 PM UTC+1, Charles Fields wrote:
>
> > I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting.
>
> > You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not
>
> > getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>
>
>
> I don't remember deceiving you by omission or otherwise, although I may
>
> have been impolite or even imprecise - if I think someone's playing the
>
> fool intentionally then I like to do the same. So, are there any
>
> particular areas where you feel that you were ill served by omission?
>
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Sep 30, 2012, 7:42:17 PM9/30/12
to
Or merely create genetic variations, which is the part of evolution
that "random accidents" provide.
Thermodynamics is a science based entirely on "random accidents",
but if your purpose is to boil an egg, you can do it with thermodynamics.
Paul J Gans
Sep 30, 2012, 8:29:13 PM9/30/12
to
Many are neutral. Some are deleterious. Some are advantageous.
This isn't speculation. One can see it in the lab. But then, can
you trust biologists to tell the truth?
>>
>>
>> Also, there's a lot of omission, and much worse, in creationism.
jillery
Oct 1, 2012, 4:10:31 AM10/1/12
to
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:04:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
zetabyte file over dialup isn't painfully stupid-funny, but I do. I
actually once tried to download a 9 gigabyte file over dialup. My
excuse is at the time I didn't believe it was really that big. I
thought it was a typo. I had plenty of room on my 20GB FAT32 drive
for a 9 megabyte file. So after several days and several restarts,
the system spat out an error at 4 GB.
And no, I'm not always that stupid, even if it seems that way
sometimes.
wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 01:08:50 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:26:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>>>><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
>>>>>that was true.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
>>>>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>>>>>
>>>>>Didn't you read it?
>>>
>>>>I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>>>
>>>I want your disk drive.
>
>>It could be I'm still using dialup :)
>
>It's not the path or the time; it's the fact that you have
>the space to store it. I repeat, I want that drive (or a
>clone). ;-)
Perhaps you don't think the visual of someone trying to download a 3.6
>On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 01:08:50 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:26:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>>>><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
>>>>>that was true.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
>>>>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>>>>>
>>>>>Didn't you read it?
>>>
>>>>I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>>>
>>>I want your disk drive.
>
>>It could be I'm still using dialup :)
>
>It's not the path or the time; it's the fact that you have
>the space to store it. I repeat, I want that drive (or a
>clone). ;-)
zetabyte file over dialup isn't painfully stupid-funny, but I do. I
actually once tried to download a 9 gigabyte file over dialup. My
excuse is at the time I didn't believe it was really that big. I
thought it was a typo. I had plenty of room on my 20GB FAT32 drive
for a 9 megabyte file. So after several days and several restarts,
the system spat out an error at 4 GB.
And no, I'm not always that stupid, even if it seems that way
sometimes.
Nick Keighley
Oct 1, 2012, 4:18:01 AM10/1/12
to
On Sep 30, 10:04 pm, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
needed by natural selection. Together these make up evolution.
So TO doesn't hide "the fact that random accidents are mostly useless
to attain a purpose" as it isn't a fact.
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:59:58 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:10:00 PM UTC+1, Charles Fields wrote:
>
> > > I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting.
> > > You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not
> > > getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>
> > I don't remember deceiving you by omission or otherwise, although I may
> > have been impolite or even imprecise - if I think someone's playing the
> > fool intentionally then I like to do the same. So, are there any
> > particular areas where you feel that you were ill served by omission?
>
> The theory of evolution does seem to hide the fact that random accidents
> are mostly useless to attain a purpose... except when the purpose is to create cancer.
mutations (your "random accidents") provide the variation that is
>
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:10:00 PM UTC+1, Charles Fields wrote:
>
> > > I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting.
> > > You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not
> > > getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>
> > I don't remember deceiving you by omission or otherwise, although I may
> > have been impolite or even imprecise - if I think someone's playing the
> > fool intentionally then I like to do the same. So, are there any
> > particular areas where you feel that you were ill served by omission?
>
> The theory of evolution does seem to hide the fact that random accidents
> are mostly useless to attain a purpose... except when the purpose is to create cancer.
needed by natural selection. Together these make up evolution.
So TO doesn't hide "the fact that random accidents are mostly useless
to attain a purpose" as it isn't a fact.
Nick Keighley
Oct 1, 2012, 4:27:21 AM10/1/12
to
On Sep 28, 8:54 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>
upgrade is available
Nick Keighley
Oct 1, 2012, 4:28:56 AM10/1/12
to
On Oct 1, 9:09 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:04:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 01:08:50 -0400, the following appeared
> >in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:04:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 01:08:50 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:26:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
> >>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
> >>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:26:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >>>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
> >>>><unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>
> >>>>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
> >>>>>that was true.
>
> >>>>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
> >>>>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>
> >>>>>Didn't you read it?
>
> >>>>I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>
> >>>I want your disk drive.
>
> >>It could be I'm still using dialup :)
>
> >It's not the path or the time; it's the fact that you have
> >the space to store it. I repeat, I want that drive (or a
> >clone). ;-)
>
> Perhaps you don't think the visual of someone trying to download a 3.6
> zetabyte file over dialup isn't painfully stupid-funny, but I do. I
> actually once tried to download a 9 gigabyte file over dialup.
I tried to use X-Window over dialup
> >>>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
> >>>><unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>
> >>>>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
> >>>>>that was true.
>
> >>>>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
> >>>>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>
> >>>>>Didn't you read it?
>
> >>>>I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>
> >>>I want your disk drive.
>
> >>It could be I'm still using dialup :)
>
> >It's not the path or the time; it's the fact that you have
> >the space to store it. I repeat, I want that drive (or a
> >clone). ;-)
>
> Perhaps you don't think the visual of someone trying to download a 3.6
> zetabyte file over dialup isn't painfully stupid-funny, but I do. I
> actually once tried to download a 9 gigabyte file over dialup.
Burkhard
Oct 1, 2012, 5:03:21 AM10/1/12
to
On Sep 30, 6:09 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:26:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
> >in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:26:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
> >><unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>
> >>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
> >>>that was true.
>
> >>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
> >>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>
> >>>Didn't you read it?
>
> >>I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>
> >I want your disk drive.
>
> It could be I'm still using dialup :)
Dialup? You are soo lucky! I get every byte delivered individually by
> >>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
> >><unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. You had me at first, I must admit. But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. Nice try.
>
> >>>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
> >>>that was true.
>
> >>>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
> >>>correctly, all ASCII text.
>
> >>>Didn't you read it?
>
> >>I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>
> >I want your disk drive.
>
> It could be I'm still using dialup :)
a carrier pigeon,
jillery
Oct 1, 2012, 5:11:26 AM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 01:28:56 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I tried to use X-Window over dialup
Egad!
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I tried to use X-Window over dialup
Smoley
Oct 1, 2012, 6:10:08 AM10/1/12
to
The lie is that it isn't.
Random accidental growth is the only producer of new creations. Natural selection is an eliminator not a creator. Genetic drift, recombination, and sexual selection all depend upon the origin of genes by random accidental growth.
Random accidental growth as the creator is not falsifiable, is not repeatable, is not scientific.
Ron O
Oct 1, 2012, 7:24:08 AM10/1/12
to
On Oct 1, 5:14�am, Smoley <smol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
random accidents happen when glucose is utilized to produce carbon
molecules and energy in your body? What random accidents allow a
flame in the presence of oxygen when you strike a match. These things
just happen all the time. Random mutations happen. We don't know how
to stop them at the population level at this time. Just in the extant
human population every site in the human genome has likely mutated
hundreds of times in the 7 billion people that comprise the human
population. You can't stop that from happening. Most of the
variation is neutral and doesn't do much. Some of it is deleterious
and some of it is useful for something. You can't even deny that
useful mutations happen because we can take highly inbred mice that
are essentially clones of each other and start selecting for
characteristics and begin to make progress once enough mutations have
occurred in the population. You can do the same with bacteria on a
larger scale and much more rapidly because you can start with a single
cell so you know the whole population started with the same genome and
you can select for different traits, such as drug resistance.
In the face of reality, what is your alternative and what evidence do
you have that it is even an option?
Really, populations have a boat load of genetic mutations or what
population geneticist call polymorphisms or genetic variants. As I
said every site in the human genome is likely to have mutated hundreds
of times in our current extant population, but we have a boat load of
more common genetic variation at 1% or more in the population. Take
any 50 humans (say one from each state) and you can find a variant
every 300 bp (DNA base-pairs) in the genome among them. There are 3
billion bp in the human genome. Any two humans have a variant about
every 1000 bp different from each other. Humans are deficient in
genetic variation compared to the average species. We have around 1/5
the genetic variation of say mice or deer species. Population
genetics tells us that a population will accumulate genetic variation
until it reaches a mutation selection balance where the number of
mutations are limited by natural selection that keeps removing the bad
mutations. Hardly any population ever reaches this state because of
things like speciation and population crashes due to drought or
disease etc. but the genetic variation keeps accumulating and most
populations maintain enough genetic variation for natural selection to
keep working on. Just look at the variation among humans. How did
this much variation come from two humans when we have so many
mutations that make us different from each other? It isn't all bad
variation. A lot of it is just differences that we can see, and so
can nature in terms of what is likely to leave more progeny. That is
just reality. You can't change that with your denial.
Ron Okimoto
> On Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:44:50 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:04:51 PM UTC+1, Smoley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:04:51 PM UTC+1, Smoley wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:59:58 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>
> > > > I don't remember deceiving you by omission or otherwise, although I may
>
> > > > have been impolite or even imprecise - if I think someone's playing the
>
> > > > fool intentionally then I like to do the same. �So, are there any
>
> > > > particular areas where you feel that you were ill served by omission?
>
> > > The theory of evolution does seem to hide the fact that random accidents
>
> > > are mostly useless to attain a purpose... except when the purpose is to
>
>
> > > > I don't remember deceiving you by omission or otherwise, although I may
>
> > > > have been impolite or even imprecise - if I think someone's playing the
>
> > > > fool intentionally then I like to do the same. �So, are there any
>
> > > > particular areas where you feel that you were ill served by omission?
>
> > > The theory of evolution does seem to hide the fact that random accidents
>
> > > are mostly useless to attain a purpose... except when the purpose is to
>
> > > create cancer.
>
> > Or merely create genetic variations, which is the part of evolution
>
> > that "random accidents" provide.
>
> > Thermodynamics is a science based entirely on "random accidents",
>
> > but if your purpose is to boil an egg, you can do it with thermodynamics.
>
> Actually, the entire ToE is based on creation by random accidents.
>
> The lie is that it isn't.
>
> Random accidental growth is the only producer of new creations. Natural selection is an eliminator not a creator. Genetic drift, recombination, and sexual selection all depend upon the origin of genes by random accidental growth.
>
> Random accidental growth as the creator is not falsifiable, is not repeatable, is not scientific.
What you call random accidents are just the laws of nature. What
>
> > Or merely create genetic variations, which is the part of evolution
>
> > that "random accidents" provide.
>
> > Thermodynamics is a science based entirely on "random accidents",
>
> > but if your purpose is to boil an egg, you can do it with thermodynamics.
>
> Actually, the entire ToE is based on creation by random accidents.
>
> The lie is that it isn't.
>
> Random accidental growth is the only producer of new creations. Natural selection is an eliminator not a creator. Genetic drift, recombination, and sexual selection all depend upon the origin of genes by random accidental growth.
>
> Random accidental growth as the creator is not falsifiable, is not repeatable, is not scientific.
random accidents happen when glucose is utilized to produce carbon
molecules and energy in your body? What random accidents allow a
flame in the presence of oxygen when you strike a match. These things
just happen all the time. Random mutations happen. We don't know how
to stop them at the population level at this time. Just in the extant
human population every site in the human genome has likely mutated
hundreds of times in the 7 billion people that comprise the human
population. You can't stop that from happening. Most of the
variation is neutral and doesn't do much. Some of it is deleterious
and some of it is useful for something. You can't even deny that
useful mutations happen because we can take highly inbred mice that
are essentially clones of each other and start selecting for
characteristics and begin to make progress once enough mutations have
occurred in the population. You can do the same with bacteria on a
larger scale and much more rapidly because you can start with a single
cell so you know the whole population started with the same genome and
you can select for different traits, such as drug resistance.
In the face of reality, what is your alternative and what evidence do
you have that it is even an option?
Really, populations have a boat load of genetic mutations or what
population geneticist call polymorphisms or genetic variants. As I
said every site in the human genome is likely to have mutated hundreds
of times in our current extant population, but we have a boat load of
more common genetic variation at 1% or more in the population. Take
any 50 humans (say one from each state) and you can find a variant
every 300 bp (DNA base-pairs) in the genome among them. There are 3
billion bp in the human genome. Any two humans have a variant about
every 1000 bp different from each other. Humans are deficient in
genetic variation compared to the average species. We have around 1/5
the genetic variation of say mice or deer species. Population
genetics tells us that a population will accumulate genetic variation
until it reaches a mutation selection balance where the number of
mutations are limited by natural selection that keeps removing the bad
mutations. Hardly any population ever reaches this state because of
things like speciation and population crashes due to drought or
disease etc. but the genetic variation keeps accumulating and most
populations maintain enough genetic variation for natural selection to
keep working on. Just look at the variation among humans. How did
this much variation come from two humans when we have so many
mutations that make us different from each other? It isn't all bad
variation. A lot of it is just differences that we can see, and so
can nature in terms of what is likely to leave more progeny. That is
just reality. You can't change that with your denial.
Ron Okimoto
Ernest Major
Oct 1, 2012, 7:54:52 AM10/1/12
to
In message
<961bc70e-1c61-4bce...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> writes
You might note that he's also (perhaps by accident) smuggling in
teleology ("attain a purpose").
--
alias Ernest Major
<961bc70e-1c61-4bce...@c20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> writes
teleology ("attain a purpose").
--
alias Ernest Major
jillery
Oct 1, 2012, 8:26:08 AM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 02:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
If they were African carrier pigeons, the could carry more data.
wrote:
jillery
Oct 1, 2012, 8:24:35 AM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 03:10:08 -0700 (PDT), Smoley
<smo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:44:50 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:04:51 PM UTC+1, Smoley wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:59:58 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > I don't remember deceiving you by omission or otherwise, although I may
>>
>> > > have been impolite or even imprecise - if I think someone's playing the
>>
>> > > fool intentionally then I like to do the same. So, are there any
>>
>> > > particular areas where you feel that you were ill served by omission?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The theory of evolution does seem to hide the fact that random accidents
>>
>> > are mostly useless to attain a purpose... except when the purpose is to
>>
>> ?> create cancer.
<smo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:44:50 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:04:51 PM UTC+1, Smoley wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 9:59:58 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > I don't remember deceiving you by omission or otherwise, although I may
>>
>> > > have been impolite or even imprecise - if I think someone's playing the
>>
>> > > fool intentionally then I like to do the same. So, are there any
>>
>> > > particular areas where you feel that you were ill served by omission?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The theory of evolution does seem to hide the fact that random accidents
>>
>> > are mostly useless to attain a purpose... except when the purpose is to
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Or merely create genetic variations, which is the part of evolution
>>
>> that "random accidents" provide.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thermodynamics is a science based entirely on "random accidents",
>>
>> but if your purpose is to boil an egg, you can do it with thermodynamics.
>
>Actually, the entire ToE is based on creation by random accidents.
>
>The lie is that it isn't.
>
>Random accidental growth is the only producer of new creations. Natural selection is an eliminator not a creator. Genetic drift, recombination, and sexual selection all depend upon the origin of genes by random accidental growth.
>
>Random accidental growth as the creator is not falsifiable, is not repeatable, is not scientific.
You have fallen into repeat mode very quickly. Strong evidence of a
>>
>>
>> Or merely create genetic variations, which is the part of evolution
>>
>> that "random accidents" provide.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thermodynamics is a science based entirely on "random accidents",
>>
>> but if your purpose is to boil an egg, you can do it with thermodynamics.
>
>Actually, the entire ToE is based on creation by random accidents.
>
>The lie is that it isn't.
>
>Random accidental growth is the only producer of new creations. Natural selection is an eliminator not a creator. Genetic drift, recombination, and sexual selection all depend upon the origin of genes by random accidental growth.
>
>Random accidental growth as the creator is not falsifiable, is not repeatable, is not scientific.
lack of anything to say.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Oct 1, 2012, 10:50:21 AM10/1/12
to
On Monday, October 1, 2012 9:09:48 AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> Perhaps you don't think the visual of someone trying to download
> a 3.6 zetabyte file over dialup isn't painfully stupid-funny, but I do.
> I actually once tried to download a 9 gigabyte file over dialup.
> My excuse is at the time I didn't believe it was really that big.
> I thought it was a typo. I had plenty of room on my 20GB FAT32 drive
> for a 9 megabyte file. So after several days and several restarts,
> the system spat out an error at 4 GB. And no, I'm not always that
> stupid, even if it seems that way sometimes.
It's easy to confuse GB and MB, or TB and GB. I nearly did it the
> Perhaps you don't think the visual of someone trying to download
> a 3.6 zetabyte file over dialup isn't painfully stupid-funny, but I do.
> I actually once tried to download a 9 gigabyte file over dialup.
> My excuse is at the time I didn't believe it was really that big.
> I thought it was a typo. I had plenty of room on my 20GB FAT32 drive
> for a 9 megabyte file. So after several days and several restarts,
> the system spat out an error at 4 GB. And no, I'm not always that
> stupid, even if it seems that way sometimes.
other day at work.
And, Windows XP for one is pretty unhelpful, as far as I recall,
when you try to copy a file > 4 GB onto FAT32; you get an error
message /eventually/, and it isn't one that clearly explains
what's wrong. If you're lucky, you eventually remember.
On the other hand, NTFS is not a good format for flash memory
storage, since some critical parts of the filesystem get rewritten
repeatedly, e.g. logging when any file was last accessed. (I think
you can turn that off, though, but I forget how.)
Bob Casanova
Oct 1, 2012, 2:34:59 PM10/1/12
to
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:30:32 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
8-inch, right? Did you try the cutting-edge 5-1/4s?
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
Bob Casanova
Oct 1, 2012, 2:38:45 PM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 04:10:31 -0400, the following appeared
Oy...
My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
reduction in blood pressure.
>And no, I'm not always that stupid, even if it seems that way
>sometimes.
Happens to all of us occasionally... ;-)
My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
reduction in blood pressure.
>And no, I'm not always that stupid, even if it seems that way
>sometimes.
Bob Casanova
Oct 1, 2012, 2:43:07 PM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 01:28:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Nick Keighley
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com>:
I did the same with Windows (NT4 was the company op system
at the time, IIRC). *Not* a pleasant experience; just
getting logged in took *way* too long, not even considering
the issue of accomplishing anything. A once-only effort.
> My
>> excuse is at the time I didn't believe it was really that big. I
>> thought it was a typo. I had plenty of room on my 20GB FAT32 drive
>> for a 9 megabyte file. So after several days and several restarts,
>> the system spat out an error at 4 GB.
>>
>> And no, I'm not always that stupid, even if it seems that way
>> sometimes.
>
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Nick Keighley
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com>:
at the time, IIRC). *Not* a pleasant experience; just
getting logged in took *way* too long, not even considering
the issue of accomplishing anything. A once-only effort.
> My
>> excuse is at the time I didn't believe it was really that big. I
>> thought it was a typo. I had plenty of room on my 20GB FAT32 drive
>> for a 9 megabyte file. So after several days and several restarts,
>> the system spat out an error at 4 GB.
>>
>> And no, I'm not always that stupid, even if it seems that way
>> sometimes.
>
Bob Casanova
Oct 1, 2012, 2:44:18 PM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 02:03:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
A carrier pigeon would be overloaded by the chiseled stone
tablets used here.; I have to use tortoises
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
tablets used here.; I have to use tortoises
Bob Casanova
Oct 1, 2012, 2:47:06 PM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:50:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Robert Carnegie: Fnord:
cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
All my flash drives are formatted FAT (FAT32, IIRC); it's
the default option. I don't even recall an option for NTFS,
although that's how my hard drives are formatted.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Robert Carnegie: Fnord:
cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
the default option. I don't even recall an option for NTFS,
although that's how my hard drives are formatted.
Walter Bushell
Oct 1, 2012, 10:08:13 PM10/1/12
to
In article <bhoj68dhb6lljd9tj...@4ax.com>,
3.5 inch IIRC. And floppies were called floppies because of the high
failure rate.
failure rate.
Nick Keighley
Oct 2, 2012, 6:28:25 AM10/2/12
to
On Oct 1, 3:54 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
you can. I've recently been trying to "write protect" a C drive-
actually its shadowed by a RAM disk which hopefully protects the real
C drive from corruption. There are loads of things you turn off
including the file access thingy
actually its shadowed by a RAM disk which hopefully protects the real
C drive from corruption. There are loads of things you turn off
including the file access thingy
Nick Keighley
Oct 2, 2012, 6:30:08 AM10/2/12
to
Walter Bushell
Oct 2, 2012, 10:13:31 AM10/2/12
to
In article <tjoj6853vqjsdbatc...@4ax.com>,
remember doing this for system and program updates.
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> Oy...
>
> My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
> dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
> figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
> reduction in blood pressure.
What's the problem, you set it up and let it run overnight, I can
> Oy...
>
> My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
> dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
> figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
> reduction in blood pressure.
remember doing this for system and program updates.
Walter Bushell
Oct 2, 2012, 10:15:57 AM10/2/12
to
In article
<809220a3-e6a6-48a3...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Should be updated to allow for SD and micro SD cards. This could
provide broadband width albeit high latency service.
<809220a3-e6a6-48a3...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
provide broadband width albeit high latency service.
Bob Casanova
Oct 2, 2012, 2:09:45 PM10/2/12
to
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:31 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
Sure, *if* it isn't spur-of-the-moment, and *if* only a
single file is needed, and *if* there are no hiccups of any
sort.
Sure, no problem at all. ;-)
Thanks; I'll stick to broadband...
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
single file is needed, and *if* there are no hiccups of any
sort.
Sure, no problem at all. ;-)
Thanks; I'll stick to broadband...
Paul J Gans
Oct 2, 2012, 2:21:36 PM10/2/12
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <bhoj68dhb6lljd9tj...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:30:32 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>
>> >In article <s9fe68ldd27rmj71m...@4ax.com>,
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>> >> ><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. ?You had me
>In article <bhoj68dhb6lljd9tj...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:30:32 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>
>> >In article <s9fe68ldd27rmj71m...@4ax.com>,
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:53:02 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
>> >> ><unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> at
>> >> >>> first, I must admit. ?But I can see I am not getting the whole truth
>> >> >>> here. ?Nice try.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
>> >> >>that was true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
>> >> >>correctly, all ASCII text.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Didn't you read it?
>> >>
>> >> >I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>> >>
>> >> I want your disk drive.
>> >
>> >Yes. I remember clicking on an icon labeled "Download the Internet".
>> >It didn't work, as I did not have enough available disk space. IIRC,
>> >even inserting a new floppy would not have given me enough disk space.
>>
>> 8-inch, right? Did you try the cutting-edge 5-1/4s?
>3.5 inch IIRC. And floppies were called floppies because of the high
>failure rate.
Not really. They were in fact floppy. The 3.5 inchers came in a
>> >> >>I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
>> >> >>that was true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
>> >> >>correctly, all ASCII text.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Didn't you read it?
>> >>
>> >> >I remember clicking on it. It's still downloading.
>> >>
>> >> I want your disk drive.
>> >
>> >Yes. I remember clicking on an icon labeled "Download the Internet".
>> >It didn't work, as I did not have enough available disk space. IIRC,
>> >even inserting a new floppy would not have given me enough disk space.
>>
>> 8-inch, right? Did you try the cutting-edge 5-1/4s?
>3.5 inch IIRC. And floppies were called floppies because of the high
>failure rate.
plastic case, so one didn't see the floppyness. The 5.25ers were
a bit floppy even in their paper cases. Take one out of the paper
case and you had floppy plastic.
But the real floppies were the original 8 inch floppies. They flopped
all over the place.
Paul J Gans
Oct 2, 2012, 3:02:54 PM10/2/12
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:31 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>In article <tjoj6853vqjsdbatc...@4ax.com>,
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>> Oy...
>>>
>>> My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
>>> dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
>>> figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
>>> reduction in blood pressure.
>>What's the problem, you set it up and let it run overnight, I can
>>remember doing this for system and program updates.
>Sure, *if* it isn't spur-of-the-moment, and *if* only a
>single file is needed, and *if* there are no hiccups of any
>sort.
>Sure, no problem at all. ;-)
>Thanks; I'll stick to broadband...
Yup. The major problem with slow downloads was that one
>On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:31 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>In article <tjoj6853vqjsdbatc...@4ax.com>,
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>> Oy...
>>>
>>> My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
>>> dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
>>> figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
>>> reduction in blood pressure.
>>What's the problem, you set it up and let it run overnight, I can
>>remember doing this for system and program updates.
>Sure, *if* it isn't spur-of-the-moment, and *if* only a
>single file is needed, and *if* there are no hiccups of any
>sort.
>Sure, no problem at all. ;-)
>Thanks; I'll stick to broadband...
error and you've just wasted 5 hours.
Today's software knows how to restart a download at the point
where it went bad, so even phone lines should be much more
reliable even if very very slow.
jillery
Oct 2, 2012, 3:24:41 PM10/2/12
to
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:31 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:
You are so spoiled. That worked when you had a relatively clean
connection and/or error-detecting and fault-tolerant systems. I do
remember babysitting downloads because they kept aborting and had to
be restarted manually.
wrote:
connection and/or error-detecting and fault-tolerant systems. I do
remember babysitting downloads because they kept aborting and had to
be restarted manually.
jillery
Oct 2, 2012, 5:01:40 PM10/2/12
to
their back pockets. That might have had something to do with their
high failure rate.
Walter Bushell
Oct 2, 2012, 6:59:41 PM10/2/12
to
In article <n8bm68dk0m3jk314p...@4ax.com>,
And updating a version of Win XP was nightmarish even on broadband.
Install update, then that update needs an update, repeat Omega naught
times. (Subjective impression, objectively it only required a finite
number of steps.)
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:31 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <tjoj6853vqjsdbatc...@4ax.com>,
> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> Oy...
> >>
> >> My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
> >> dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
> >> figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
> >> reduction in blood pressure.
>
> >What's the problem, you set it up and let it run overnight, I can
> >remember doing this for system and program updates.
>
> Sure, *if* it isn't spur-of-the-moment, and *if* only a
> single file is needed, and *if* there are no hiccups of any
> sort.
>
> Sure, no problem at all. ;-)
>
> Thanks; I'll stick to broadband...
Well sure, broadband is for choice.
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:31 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <tjoj6853vqjsdbatc...@4ax.com>,
> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> Oy...
> >>
> >> My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
> >> dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
> >> figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
> >> reduction in blood pressure.
>
> >What's the problem, you set it up and let it run overnight, I can
> >remember doing this for system and program updates.
>
> Sure, *if* it isn't spur-of-the-moment, and *if* only a
> single file is needed, and *if* there are no hiccups of any
> sort.
>
> Sure, no problem at all. ;-)
>
> Thanks; I'll stick to broadband...
And updating a version of Win XP was nightmarish even on broadband.
Install update, then that update needs an update, repeat Omega naught
times. (Subjective impression, objectively it only required a finite
number of steps.)
Paul J Gans
Oct 2, 2012, 8:47:46 PM10/2/12
to
>>But the real floppies were the original 8 inch floppies. They flopped
>>all over the place.
Paul J Gans
Oct 2, 2012, 8:56:06 PM10/2/12
to
theory that there were an infinite number remains.
Josh Hayes
Oct 3, 2012, 12:35:44 PM10/3/12
to
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in
news:k49no...@news6.newsguy.com:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:45:12 -0400, Burkhard wrote
> (in article
> <f2c2140f-0b9f-45f5...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On 27 Sep, 22:30, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Sep 27, 4:10�pm, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. �You had
>>>> me at first, I must admit. �But I can see I am not getting the
>>>> whole truth here. �Nice try.
>>>
>>> If you are implying that something is being willfully omitted, would
>>> you care to state what is beig omitted in an attempt to deceive
>>> people into accepting the ToE as a valid scientific theory? �Or is
>>> this one of those "I know something you don't know" things?
>>>
>>> Boikat
>>
>> It was a simple typo, he meant: Deception by O'Mission, the infamous
>> Irish confidence trickster. I did not know though that the was
>> posting on TO, but hen, the may have deceived us about his identity.
>> It's the sort of thing Brian O'Mission would do.
>>
>
> Oy! He was an Englishman, _pretending_ to be Irish!
>
That's right: he was on Her Majesty's Secret Service. Double Omission.
Always going on about his secret omissions, too.
-jah
news:k49no...@news6.newsguy.com:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:45:12 -0400, Burkhard wrote
> (in article
> <f2c2140f-0b9f-45f5...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On 27 Sep, 22:30, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Sep 27, 4:10�pm, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. �You had
>>>> me at first, I must admit. �But I can see I am not getting the
>>>> whole truth here. �Nice try.
>>>
>>> If you are implying that something is being willfully omitted, would
>>> you care to state what is beig omitted in an attempt to deceive
>>> people into accepting the ToE as a valid scientific theory? �Or is
>>> this one of those "I know something you don't know" things?
>>>
>>> Boikat
>>
>> It was a simple typo, he meant: Deception by O'Mission, the infamous
>> Irish confidence trickster. I did not know though that the was
>> posting on TO, but hen, the may have deceived us about his identity.
>> It's the sort of thing Brian O'Mission would do.
>>
>
> Oy! He was an Englishman, _pretending_ to be Irish!
>
That's right: he was on Her Majesty's Secret Service. Double Omission.
Always going on about his secret omissions, too.
-jah
Bob Casanova
Oct 3, 2012, 12:36:28 PM10/3/12
to
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 19:02:54 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:31 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
>>>In article <tjoj6853vqjsdbatc...@4ax.com>,
>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oy...
>>>>
>>>> My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
>>>> dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
>>>> figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
>>>> reduction in blood pressure.
>
>>>What's the problem, you set it up and let it run overnight, I can
>>>remember doing this for system and program updates.
>
>>Sure, *if* it isn't spur-of-the-moment, and *if* only a
>>single file is needed, and *if* there are no hiccups of any
>>sort.
>
>>Sure, no problem at all. ;-)
>
>>Thanks; I'll stick to broadband...
>
>Yup. The major problem with slow downloads was that one
>error and you've just wasted 5 hours.
Yep.
>Today's software knows how to restart a download at the point
>where it went bad, so even phone lines should be much more
>reliable even if very very slow.
I can remember how ecstatic I was when the first "download
helper" with error recovery became available - no more
retries of 1-2 hour downloads, just a simple "pick up where
you left off"! How times change...
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:31 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
>>>In article <tjoj6853vqjsdbatc...@4ax.com>,
>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oy...
>>>>
>>>> My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
>>>> dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
>>>> figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
>>>> reduction in blood pressure.
>
>>>What's the problem, you set it up and let it run overnight, I can
>>>remember doing this for system and program updates.
>
>>Sure, *if* it isn't spur-of-the-moment, and *if* only a
>>single file is needed, and *if* there are no hiccups of any
>>sort.
>
>>Sure, no problem at all. ;-)
>
>>Thanks; I'll stick to broadband...
>
>Yup. The major problem with slow downloads was that one
>error and you've just wasted 5 hours.
>Today's software knows how to restart a download at the point
>where it went bad, so even phone lines should be much more
>reliable even if very very slow.
helper" with error recovery became available - no more
retries of 1-2 hour downloads, just a simple "pick up where
you left off"! How times change...
Bob Casanova
Oct 3, 2012, 12:39:14 PM10/3/12
to
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:59:41 -0400, the following appeared
The estimated number of subatomic particles in the universe
comes to mind...
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article <n8bm68dk0m3jk314p...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:31 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>
>> >In article <tjoj6853vqjsdbatc...@4ax.com>,
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Oy...
>> >>
>> >> My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
>> >> dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
>> >> figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
>> >> reduction in blood pressure.
>>
>> >What's the problem, you set it up and let it run overnight, I can
>> >remember doing this for system and program updates.
>>
>> Sure, *if* it isn't spur-of-the-moment, and *if* only a
>> single file is needed, and *if* there are no hiccups of any
>> sort.
>>
>> Sure, no problem at all. ;-)
>>
>> Thanks; I'll stick to broadband...
>
>Well sure, broadband is for choice.
>
>And updating a version of Win XP was nightmarish even on broadband.
>Install update, then that update needs an update, repeat Omega naught
>times. (Subjective impression, objectively it only required a finite
>number of steps.)
Finite but large.
>In article <n8bm68dk0m3jk314p...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:13:31 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>
>> >In article <tjoj6853vqjsdbatc...@4ax.com>,
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Oy...
>> >>
>> >> My sympathy. I've actually downloaded a 200MB+ file over
>> >> dialup, which was one of the reasons I got a cable modem; I
>> >> figured the additional expense was more than offset by the
>> >> reduction in blood pressure.
>>
>> >What's the problem, you set it up and let it run overnight, I can
>> >remember doing this for system and program updates.
>>
>> Sure, *if* it isn't spur-of-the-moment, and *if* only a
>> single file is needed, and *if* there are no hiccups of any
>> sort.
>>
>> Sure, no problem at all. ;-)
>>
>> Thanks; I'll stick to broadband...
>
>Well sure, broadband is for choice.
>
>And updating a version of Win XP was nightmarish even on broadband.
>Install update, then that update needs an update, repeat Omega naught
>times. (Subjective impression, objectively it only required a finite
>number of steps.)
The estimated number of subatomic particles in the universe
comes to mind...
Bob Casanova
Oct 3, 2012, 12:43:42 PM10/3/12
to
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 00:47:46 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
Back in the early days (around 1980, Apple II+) a lady came
into the shop where I got my first computer 3 times with
trashed 5-1/4" system floppies (which were not inexpensive
then). They really were trashed, and the owner replaced them
each time. Until, that is, he discovered she was "storing"
them on the front of the refrigerator, held with a magnet...
Technically illiterate button pushers; ya gotta luv 'em...
>>>But the real floppies were the original 8 inch floppies. They flopped
>>>all over the place.
--
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
into the shop where I got my first computer 3 times with
trashed 5-1/4" system floppies (which were not inexpensive
then). They really were trashed, and the owner replaced them
each time. Until, that is, he discovered she was "storing"
them on the front of the refrigerator, held with a magnet...
Technically illiterate button pushers; ya gotta luv 'em...
>>>But the real floppies were the original 8 inch floppies. They flopped
>>>all over the place.
--
Bob Casanova
Oct 3, 2012, 12:46:58 PM10/3/12
to
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 00:56:06 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
I think that's incorrect; XP (at least XP Pro) has full
support until sometime in 2014. I still get security updates
regularly.
> The
>theory that there were an infinite number remains.
Not infinite, just large; see my previous response about the
number of subatomic particles in the universe... ;-)
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
support until sometime in 2014. I still get security updates
regularly.
> The
>theory that there were an infinite number remains.
number of subatomic particles in the universe... ;-)
Kermit
Oct 3, 2012, 5:21:31 PM10/3/12
to
On 28 Sep, 13:29, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> you did not address his subtle point implied by his sentence in
> line 4258 of his most recent post. Shame on you.
Kermit
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. ?You had me at first, I must admit. ?But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. ?Nice try.
> >I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
> >that was true.
> >It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
> >correctly, all ASCII text.
> >Didn't you read it?
>
> I did and I must say that, while everything you posted was true,
> >On 27 Sep, 14:10, Charles Fields <chipfie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am beginning to see now how TO is deceiving by omitting. ?You had me at first, I must admit. ?But I can see I am not getting the whole truth here. ?Nice try.
> >I'm pretty sure that just a little while ago I posted *everything*
> >that was true.
> >It was a rather long post, roughly 3.6 zetabytes, if I recall
> >correctly, all ASCII text.
> >Didn't you read it?
>
> you did not address his subtle point implied by his sentence in
> line 4258 of his most recent post. Shame on you.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
Well, crap.
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
Kermit
Paul J Gans
Oct 3, 2012, 9:33:36 PM10/3/12
to
>>
>> --
>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans
>Well, crap.
Yup.
Walter Bushell
Oct 4, 2012, 10:40:23 AM10/4/12
to
In article <gfqo68952m3jtci78...@4ax.com>,
Now consider cardinality the power set of the number of subatomic
particles in the universe.
particles in the universe.
Bob Casanova
Oct 4, 2012, 2:16:32 PM10/4/12
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:35:44 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Josh Hayes
<jos...@SPAMblarg.net>:
Not to mention his nocturnal omissions...
in talk.origins, posted by Josh Hayes
<jos...@SPAMblarg.net>:
Bob Casanova
Oct 4, 2012, 2:24:14 PM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:40:23 -0400, the following appeared
....and then apply the result as the exponent for a
googleplex. Still finite, if a bit larger... ;-)
googleplex. Still finite, if a bit larger... ;-)
0 new messages