Just don't know about that Amy Coney Barrett

[William Crowell]

She recently wrote that “this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”.

How disappointing that she doesn't know the difference between "comprise" (a transitive verb) and "compose" (an intransitive verb). She's using the transitive verb in an intransitive sentence structure. I would have expected better grammar from a Supreme Court justice.

[Tom Kunich]

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 5:54:40 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> She recently wrote that “this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”.
>
> How disappointing that she doesn't know the difference between "comprise" (a transitive verb) and "compose" (an intransitive verb). She's using the transitive verb in an intransitive sentence structure. I would have expected better grammar from a Supreme Court justice.

She wrote or some "journalist" reported she said or wrote?

[William Crowell]

That is certainly a fair question, Tom. Given the lies and incompetence of the lamestream media, it is quite possible that they reported her words incorrectly. I have been trying to find a video of that speech, which she gave on September 12 at the McConnell Center, University of Louisville, but haven't found it yet.

[Tom Kunich]

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 7:01:39 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> That is certainly a fair question, Tom. Given the lies and incompetence of the lamestream media, it is quite possible that they reported her words incorrectly. I have been trying to find a video of that speech, which she gave on September 12 at the McConnell Center, University of Louisville, but haven't found it yet.

Well, lets remember that the Lame Stream Media is willing to tell us what a great public speaker Biden is (he never was) so I wouldn't be at all surprised that they are willing to misquote a conservative justice.

[Mark cleary]

Amy Coney Barrett is a brilliant legal mind and judge. I am behind her all the way...........go Amy Go.
Deacon Mark

[Tom Kunich]

The Democrats HATE anyone that is normal because the only support they get is from looney tunes people like Jay who is willing to tell us that there were no riots in downtown Portland.

[AMuzi]

On 9/22/2021 9:01 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> That is certainly a fair question, Tom. Given the lies and incompetence of the lamestream media, it is quite possible that they reported her words incorrectly. I have been trying to find a video of that speech, which she gave on September 12 at the McConnell Center, University of Louisville, but haven't found it yet.
>

Many reports but I could not find a transcript or a complete
video of her speech.

As with typos on RBT, we understand the meaning while
overlooking the text error. It's not an unreasonable thing
to say.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[jbeattie]

Amy Coney Barrett is a qualified judge of the right flavor for the president and party who nominated her. Some of her theories on statutory interpretation (shared in part by Scalia) don't resonate with me, and I prefer judges with significant practice experience or time on the trial bench. Those from academia seem to be more interested in philosophy than practical solutions.

As for looney tunes, I'm not the one taking anti-psychotic medications, and Portland was beautiful yesterday. Very peaceful and quiet downtown, although still a ghost-town compared to pre-COVID days. Its somewhat overcast this morning.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

Yeah. I was also looking for the original written speech -- a third-party transcript may have suffered hearing problems or instinctive corrections by typists. Unlike Tom, I don't think he current crop of "reporters" have the brains or the education to lie deliberately about such an esoteric point of grammar in order to embarrass a Supreme Court justice. But I'll believe ignorant misreporting.

That's a very fine point to pick up, William, and I congratulate your teachers.

However, it may not be an error so much in a developing language as a deliberate choice of a near meaning because for the judiciary the word "compose" has now taken on the negative meaning of "fabricate", in short an association with deliberate false witness.

Andre Jute
Who'd never correct a lady on her grammar.

[William Crowell]

Jay Beattie wrote: "Some of her theories on statutory interpretation (shared in part by Scalia) don't resonate with me."

Right; they don't like inquiries into legislative intent, because they feel legislative intent is, at best, woefully difficult to discern, and at worst, completely in the eye of the beholder.

I rather liked Scalia's "originalism" approach because otherwise judges' constitutional interpretations are completely untethered, logically. But I did have serious doubts about him ever since I heard him say in an interview that he believed, literally, in heaven, hell, a devil with horns and a pitchfork and the fires of hades. I couldn't help feeling serious reservations about whether I really wanted a man who believed these things literally to be deciding my legal rights.

Now please give us the counter-argument, Deacon Mark.

[Tom Kunich]

Perhaps you are unaware, but the universe is almost twice as large as it would be in the age it is. (this is calculable by looking at the oldest stars) And rather than collapsing as it should with its gravitational mass it is expanding at a growing rate. Until there are answers to those questions, the God theory is as good as any.

[Mark cleary]

I believe in heaven and hell, and in evil, Satan and his wilds. No counter argument really I am not arguing anything as such ,it is belief statement founded on a principle of calculated risk. It is not complete proof that there are these things. Faith is not absolute knowledge or it would not be faith. The teaser from God is he gives us the complete independence of saying no and not believing. Many folks don't agree and don't like it but many do.
Deacon Mark.

[AMuzi]

Well put.
Belief, knowledge and truth are separate things. Utterly.

[jbeattie]

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 9:02:09 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote: "Some of her theories on statutory interpretation (shared in part by Scalia) don't resonate with me."
>
> Right; they don't like inquiries into legislative intent, because they feel legislative intent is, at best, woefully difficult to discern, and at worst, completely in the eye of the beholder.

And more specifically, how to deal with legislative history -- and what a court should do when there is clearly a scrivener's error in the statute. I've written bills that looked entirely different when they emerged from legislative counsel's office, and while the differences were formalistic and made to conform to the style-of-the day, sometimes LC unwittingly changes the meaning of a bill. Sometimes these changers are not picked up by the original drafter who goes on to paraphrase and promote the bill to whatever committee is considering it. Sometimes a committee will just pen last-minute sh** into a bill. A "not" gets dropped off. You end up with a statute that is just wrong and sometimes reversed. This is not common, but it happens. The most conservative would enforce the statute as written.

-- Jay Beattie.

[William Crowell]

Jay Beattie wrote: "A "not" gets dropped off. You end up with a statute that is just wrong and sometimes reversed."

I believe the USSC has already dealt with cases like this, and the decision was that, in order to pay proper respect to the legislature, the courts should interpret the statute exactly as written. After all, who really knows why the "not" was omitted? There could be quite an irresolvable difference of opinion as to whether omitting it was intentional or mistaken. If the legislature feels the omission was a mistake, they can always amend the statute to put the "not" back into it.

[AMuzi]

heh heh.

Wisconsin Governors have a character-by-character, down to
spaces and punctuation marks, edit veto. A lot of things
can be 'assembled' from a text, like a snipped-letter ransom
note!

Legislative overrides are very rare, just like anywhere else.

[AMuzi]

On 9/22/2021 1:41 PM, William Crowell wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote: "A "not" gets dropped off. You end up with a statute that is just wrong and sometimes reversed."
>
> I believe the USSC has already dealt with cases like this, and the decision was that, in order to pay proper respect to the legislature, the courts should interpret the statute exactly as written. After all, who really knows why the "not" was omitted? There could be quite an irresolvable difference of opinion as to whether omitting it was intentional or mistaken. If the legislature feels the omission was a mistake, they can always amend the statute to put the "not" back into it.
>

Well, yes, but the composition (vote ratios) of the
Legislature(s) are dynamic, that is the amending group(s)
are different from the authoring group(s), and it still
hinges on a Governor's signature.

Clumsy singular/plural for Nebraska. Every other state has
two chambers

[William Crowell]

OK, I'll give the counter-argument that Deacon Mark didn't want to give.

Believing anything on faith is the antithesis of science. Science is about testing theories empirically, but by definition beliefs based on faith cannot be tested. circulus in probando.

So since I can't test them, how do I know that my faith-based beliefs are not just an excuse for sloppy thinking? An exercise in "check my brain at the door"? I can never really know because I can't test them.

If I said that I believe in ghosts, goblins and witches you would say I'm crazy, but if I express similarly-doubtful premises as items of religious faith, everybody gives me a free pass at least, and maybe also even thinks I'm virtuous. This creates an incentive for religions to make up bolder, more robust and engaging fantasies, like the Mormons have done, in order to obtain more converts.

I will admit that there might be some evidence of a higher being, though. For example, we all know that DNA is programmed to produce and grow bodily cells, but who programmed the DNA? I just don't think we're going to figure that out by using faith-based beliefs.

[AMuzi]

They're different realms and not in conflict.

Regarding science, every issue of Science News has at least
one new report contradicting something I learned
differently. An essential part of a scientific outlook or
mien is to either change to accept newer better data or
reserve opinion where data conflicts.

[jbeattie]

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 11:41:49 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote: "A "not" gets dropped off. You end up with a statute that is just wrong and sometimes reversed."
>
> I believe the USSC has already dealt with cases like this, and the decision was that, in order to pay proper respect to the legislature, the courts should interpret the statute exactly as written. After all, who really knows why the "not" was omitted? There could be quite an irresolvable difference of opinion as to whether omitting it was intentional or mistaken. If the legislature feels the omission was a mistake, they can always amend the statute to put the "not" back into it.

Who knows? Gads, listen to the committee hearings and read the bill file. Some errors are pretty glaring. Our old products liability statute of ultimate repose said one thing but meant another because the legislature didn't notice an error -- as proven by abundant and consistent history. The court just rewrote the statute to say what the legislature intended, and the case law sort of took the place of the statute. It stayed that way for 20 years -- until I rewrote the statute along with two plaintiff's-side lawyers, although LC mangled our version, but it still worked. Then, the statute was redone again, and when it came back from LC, it was screwed up in a way that wasn't caught and now exists with the flaw. I had nothing to do with that one, except that I litigated it as amicus with Ford Motors. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-supreme-court/1897591.html The flaw involves an issue that was not addressed in Miller, but you'll note how our SC deals with legislative history.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Mark cleary]

William this is my last post on the subject but really it boils down to a big circle. You cannot prove to me that God does not exist and science at great as it is and useful, cannot answer the question of why I am here and what am I supposed to do? If it is all fate and nothing matters after this life then you my friend have taken a huge leap of faith. I have studied all the philosophy stuff and put my trust in my heart. Science cannot explain that.
Deacon Mark

[Tom Kunich]

Believing ANYTHING marketed as SCIENCE when you do not understand it is tantamount to faith a great deal worse than religion. And people here have been arguing so-called "science" that is nothing of the kind. Look at John pulling a comment out of the hat by cutting and pasting internet articles that are written by "journalists" who haven't even a passing interest in science. John is certainly not the sole purveyor of this crap - didn't Jay just say that if Fauci was telling the truth he could be prosecuted? I don't believe that Fauci could utter two statements without one of the two being an utter lie. Where is his prosecution? We have literally thousands of far better qualified medical scientists saying that Fauci is lying and nothing has happened yet.

[Tom Kunich]

Science, Science News and National Geographic finally got to the point that I dropped my 20 years of subscription. Bullshit became their go to articles. NO qualified expert believes in man-made global warming. We have historic records going back hundreds of thousands of years that that show beyond the shadow of a doubt that all climate is cyclic that the energy necessary for these changes is so far outside of the ability of man that it is like a drop not in a bucket but in the ocean.

And yet in every Science News I got up until I cancelled my subscription they would blame something or another on climate change - We are presently in a STASIS - yes, it is getting colder, but we are at the temperature peak and it will take about 200,000 years to falling eventually into another Ice Age. And land values in the tropic will really be hitting highs.

[Tom Kunich]

Science continues to return to the God theory. Nothing could evolve in the amount of time they have. The Universe is FAR larger than the time it has been in existence and this time can clearly be estimated by the lives of the stars in it. Near the center of the universe, the motions of the galaxies cannot be explained by the amount of matter they represent. So they have invented "Dark Matter" to explain the missing matter. But this in term implies that by now the universe should have stopped expanding from the Big Bang. But it is NOT. It not only is expanding but increasing in velocity. This in turn suggests an INFINITE universe. That whatever caused it cannot be stopped.

Just as God promised us that there would never be another flood I assume that had we been smart enough to record his actual words, there would never be an end of time.

[AMuzi]

I smile as I write
Just like RBT! Ignore the silly parts!

[Frank Krygowski]

On 9/22/2021 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Science, Science News and National Geographic finally got to the point that I dropped my 20 years of subscription. Bullshit became their go to articles. NO qualified expert believes in man-made global warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Frank, you have never answered my question - what do you know about science? You have already shown you cannot even understand statistics. Since a great many proofs in science are entirely statistical, how would you know anything about it?

[Tom Kunich]

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 3:45:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

While you're at it Frank. Gives us the name of a scientist that does believe in man-made climate change. I want you to tell me how less than .03% change in the CO2 levels would affect the climate when just 100,000 years ago the CO2 was 14 times larger and that is when ALL of the plants grew - They grew at such a rate that they could not rot fast enough and became the coal deposits that are under ALL of the land masses.

Tell us Frank - did the Earth burn up? Where are your wonderfully talented "scientists" that tell you it did?

You simply add one ignorant statement after another to your list that is probably 1,200 pages long by now.

[John B.]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:01:36 -0700 (PDT), William Crowell
<retrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

>That is certainly a fair question, Tom. Given the lies and incompetence of the lamestream media, it is quite possible that they reported her words incorrectly. I have been trying to find a video of that speech, which she gave on September 12 at the McConnell Center, University of Louisville, but haven't found it yet.

But, what exactly is the "lamestring media", or perhaps a better
question is "what is not the lamestring media". I would assume that it
must be a news media that reports only facts with no interpretation or
other comments, but where is it?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

(:-) It was once a know fact that the sun traveled around the earth.
The Church even guaranteed it and even a fool could look up and see it
with his/her/its own eyes (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[William Crowell]

Kindly indulge one more rant on this subject. IMHO the religious freedom guarantee in the First Amendment was intended only to declare a truce in the Protestant-Catholic wars that had been going on in G.B. ever since the Crown and Rome began their disagreement about who should run the church. The First Amendment was not intended to permit an individual to engage in fanciful beliefs by checking their brain at the door, and then to force their beliefs on others under the guise of "religious accommodation".

Any hotshot statisticians in the group? How many standard deviations above the mean is it to have the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court that we have, as opposed to a S.C. composition in which Catholics represented only their proportionate share of the population?

[Tom Kunich]

John, if you don't know what the lame stream media is why don't you simply read the New York Times? 1. There IS no covid-19 deaths. I have shown you and everyone else the fact that there was only about 2,000 excess deaths from respiratory disease and that was in March and April of 2020. There hasn't been ANY excess deaths from respiratory disease since. So WHY does the New York Times insist that 600,000 people have died from it? For Christ''s sake - My TV went bonkers yesterday for some unknown reason and put me on a Chinese news station and THEY reported how people that were dying from natural causes were being reported as covid-19 deaths. If even the Chinese know it why don't you?

2, There isn't any climate change. We have a hot year this year. It is a La Nina year. This occurs every couple of years. Because it is hot doesn't mean that it is unusual. The acreage of fire damage is a tiny amount compared to 1911. Every year since then the amount of fire damage has gone down. And this is BAD because our evergreen forests require fire to renew themselves. Are you aware that Redwood bark is fireproof?

All of this fear was used by the Democrats to widely disseminate ballots and cause election fraud. The ONE country in the world that is founded upon the equality of man is being pulled down by power hungry politicians who thirst for power and money. This is a tiny percentage of the population that is using lies and distortions to steal and election. You don't actually think that anyone but a fool would think that Gavin Loathsome was anything other than a fool with a record of failures longer than the years of his life. But it worked in the general election so why not here? Mass mailings of ballots that could not be verified and Loathsome remains in office.

[jbeattie]

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:14:05 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Kindly indulge one more rant on this subject. IMHO the religious freedom guarantee in the First Amendment was intended only to declare a truce in the Protestant-Catholic wars that had been going on in G.B. ever since the Crown and Rome began their disagreement about who should run the church. The First Amendment was not intended to permit an individual to engage in fanciful beliefs by checking their brain at the door, and then to force their beliefs on others under the guise of "religious accommodation".
>
> Any hotshot statisticians in the group? How many standard deviations above the mean is it to have the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court that we have, as opposed to a S.C. composition in which Catholics represented only their proportionate share of the population?

The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was a check on federal power only. Freedom of religion in the states was spotty. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/ Being Catholic was a handicap, and nobody was making accommodations, which is really an employment concept. Employers could own their black workers back in the day and kill them without criminal liability, if they were killed during "corrective" action. Ah, the good old days when an employer had some clout. Nowadays, everybody is expecting a bonus for just showing up.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 9/23/2021 10:14 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> Kindly indulge one more rant on this subject. IMHO the religious freedom guarantee in the First Amendment was intended only to declare a truce in the Protestant-Catholic wars that had been going on in G.B. ever since the Crown and Rome began their disagreement about who should run the church. The First Amendment was not intended to permit an individual to engage in fanciful beliefs by checking their brain at the door, and then to force their beliefs on others under the guise of "religious accommodation".

I think that's an extreme simplification. The American states, nee
colonies, had far different attitudes toward religion compared to those
of today. The complications were many.

> Any hotshot statisticians in the group? How many standard deviations above the mean is it to have the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court that we have, as opposed to a S.C. composition in which Catholics represented only their proportionate share of the population?

I think the question is badly formed, and it seems to imply a background
assumption that systems should not deviate from the mean - for example,
that flipping an honest coin should never result in five heads in a row.
But normal curves do have tails.

Here are details on the USSC's demographics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

The dominant fact is that white male protestants have been dominant. In
the 115 justices since the beginning, Catholics and blacks and women
have been underrepresented. The current number of Catholics might be
viewed as a step in regression toward the mean.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 9/23/2021 10:36 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

> There IS no covid-19 deaths.

SMH

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Jay is of the opinion that States may legally change their forms of government to communism just like changing their underwear. Well, Washington, Oregon and California are reaping the benefits of ideas like that. Uncontrolled homelessness, workers who pay the taxes to pay for these sorts of things leaving and soon all of the land held by corporations which will them have absolutely no way to make any profits.

Jay, let me congratulate you on such observational powers and the inability to understand why Idaho and the Dakotas are growing like never before. Even my Democrat brother has moved to Nevada. I'm waiting for you to haul me into court with Fauci so that I can then summon his financial records and show exactly what he has been up to. You legal eagles are all so bright it is blinding.

[Tom Kunich]

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 8:57:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/23/2021 10:36 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > There IS no covid-19 deaths.
> SMH

I always enjoy you writing initials for something because you are incapable of writing the words. I have both proven it with the CDC statistics AND the fact that the mortuary business has lost money for 5 years running. It is a shame that you're so stupid. But there it is.

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 9:37:29 PM UTC+1, William Crowell wrote:

> I will admit that there might be some evidence of a higher being, though. For example, we all know that DNA is programmed to produce and grow bodily cells, but who programmed the DNA? I just don't think we're going to figure that out by using faith-based beliefs.

The God Hypothesis has returned, bigly, because it is absolutely, scientifically, as good as any other explanation in current vogue, and better than the most widely subscribed to by people outside the field, Darwinism.

I enjoyed reading Dawkins's books because he writes well, but I have statistics than he does and I was into computer when they still had glowing tubes. I knew when his first book was published that he was playing with a stacked deck by searching for something pre-defined, which is perfectly contrary to the spirit and practice of Darwinic evolution, but there wasn't then a better explanation and physicists like Stephen Hawking were playing with the same stacked deck. There was nothing better to work with. There is now, when research is piling up about Darwinian evolution not fitting the time scales available, something that also bothered Darwin. Some of the practitioners of scientism (rather than science) who post here are clearly thrown back on a faith in Charles Darwin's infallibility that Charles Darwin himself never professed and would have rejected with horror.

Anyone who wants to check these matter for himself would do well to read Stephen C Meyer's three key books which deal with the logic, time periods, and implications of new discoveries in DNA in very accessible form:
Signature in the Cell
Darwin's Doubt
The Return of the God Hypothesis

Andre Jute
Those elongated skulls of Neanderthals are clearly inherited from the alien spores who mated with their ancestors.

[Andre Jute]

Fat Al presented a graph to an audience from which all those who wanted to question him had been excluded. He explained to an audience that on the video looks college-educated, that CO2 caused global warming. But, actually, the graph showed that warming caused CO2 emissions. When the trendies in British education tried to introduce Gore's book into the syllabus, a British judge, appointed for life and without political affiliation, tabulated so many outright lies, including the sequence of causation, that he ordered corrected before the book could be given to schoolchildren, that the entire project fell flat.

But people still think Fat Al retails "The Science". It's the perfect explanation for my contempt for the Global Warmies.

Andre Jute
"Yes, but if I admitted there is no global warming I'd lose all my friends," is not a valid excuse for stupidity.

[Andre Jute]

I always knew that one day you would see the light, Jay: "The man with the knout has the clout."

Andre Jute
Good old Cossack principles never die

[William Crowell]

Andre Jute wrote: "The God Hypothesis has returned, bigly,"

There is something I don't understand about The God Hypothesis. Yes, there is only a "one over ten to the 63rd power" chance of humans having turned out exactly the way we did, BUT there IS a 100% probability that humans would turn out SOME way, and this just happens to be the way we turned out. Am I wrong? Am I wrong?

[jbeattie]

I had to look-up "knout." I thought it was a cabbage dish or a Polish sausage. How about, the man with the whip runs the ship. The man with the scourge gets to splurge! If I told my employees that the "man with the knout has the clout," they would wonder WTF I was talking about.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

On 9/23/2021 2:13 PM, William Crowell wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote: "The God Hypothesis has returned, bigly,"
>
> There is something I don't understand about The God Hypothesis. Yes, there is only a "one over ten to the 63rd power" chance of humans having turned out exactly the way we did, BUT there IS a 100% probability that humans would turn out SOME way, and this just happens to be the way we turned out. Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
>

Wait until our alien overlords, the slime mold from Alpha
Centauri, straighten you out on that.

[jbeattie]

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 1:15:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/23/2021 2:13 PM, William Crowell wrote:
> > Andre Jute wrote: "The God Hypothesis has returned, bigly,"
> >
> > There is something I don't understand about The God Hypothesis. Yes, there is only a "one over ten to the 63rd power" chance of humans having turned out exactly the way we did, BUT there IS a 100% probability that humans would turn out SOME way, and this just happens to be the way we turned out. Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
> >
> Wait until our alien overlords, the slime mold from Alpha
> Centauri, straighten you out on that.

Or the machines running the Matrix. There is no spoon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXtO5dMqEI&ab_channel=PabloPARRADO

I like the Hindu multi-god approach because it is clear to me that some creations are better than others. The god of knees and backs -- the God Arthralgia -- should be fired.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 12:41:15 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
<jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:

>I had to look-up "knout."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knout>

>I thought it was a cabbage dish or a Polish sausage.

Polish sausage is kielbasa. Polish cabbage is kapusta. These are
somewhat similar to knout, but not really close enough. I suppose
both could be prepared by beating on the sausage or cabbage with a
knout, but probably not.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[John B.]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 07:36:17 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 7:05:25 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:01:36 -0700 (PDT), William Crowell
>> <retrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That is certainly a fair question, Tom. Given the lies and incompetence of the lamestream media, it is quite possible that they reported her words incorrectly. I have been trying to find a video of that speech, which she gave on September 12 at the McConnell Center, University of Louisville, but haven't found it yet.
>> But, what exactly is the "lamestring media", or perhaps a better
>> question is "what is not the lamestring media". I would assume that it
>> must be a news media that reports only facts with no interpretation or
>> other comments, but where is it?
>
>John, if you don't know what the lame stream media is why don't you simply read the New York Times? 1. There IS no covid-19 deaths. I have shown you and everyone else the fact that there was only about 2,000 excess deaths from respiratory disease and that was in March and April of 2020. There hasn't been ANY excess deaths from respiratory disease since. So WHY does the New York Times insist that 600,000 people have died from it? For Christ''s sake - My TV went bonkers yesterday for some unknown reason and put me on a Chinese news station and THEY reported how people that were dying from natural causes were being reported as covid-19 deaths. If even the Chinese know it why don't you?

You seem to go on and on without saying much of anything.

I described what I thought a " lamestream media" might be and asked "
where is it?" and you respond with some story about a Chinese news
station "that reported". But how in the world you understand a
"Chinese news station"? Or have you recently learned to speak Chinese?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 09:02:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:41:40 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:14:05 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> > Kindly indulge one more rant on this subject. IMHO the religious freedom guarantee in the First Amendment was intended only to declare a truce in the Protestant-Catholic wars that had been going on in G.B. ever since the Crown and Rome began their disagreement about who should run the church. The First Amendment was not intended to permit an individual to engage in fanciful beliefs by checking their brain at the door, and then to force their beliefs on others under the guise of "religious accommodation".
>> >
>> > Any hotshot statisticians in the group? How many standard deviations above the mean is it to have the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court that we have, as opposed to a S.C. composition in which Catholics represented only their proportionate share of the population?
>> The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was a check on federal power only. Freedom of religion in the states was spotty. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/ Being Catholic was a handicap, and nobody was making accommodations, which is really an employment concept. Employers could own their black workers back in the day and kill them without criminal liability, if they were killed during "corrective" action. Ah, the good old days when an employer had some clout. Nowadays, everybody is expecting a bonus for just showing up.
>
>Jay is of the opinion that States may legally change their forms of government to communism just like changing their underwear. Well, Washington, Oregon and California are reaping the benefits of ideas like that. Uncontrolled homelessness, workers who pay the taxes to pay for these sorts of things leaving and soon all of the land held by corporations which will them have absolutely no way to make any profits.

Tommy Boy, you really are a fool. You write that "may legally change
their forms of government to communism" and then go on about
homeless, land held by corporations, etc.

I've asked you before whether you knew what communism is and you never
replied, so I'll tell you what a good friend who grew up in Communist
Hungary told me.
"In one word it was more humane. There was no jobless, there was no
homeless. Everybody must go to school. Education was free all the way
through university"

So given proof that you don't know what you are talking about why
should anyone believe any of your rants and raves?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Joy Beeson]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:37:27 -0700 (PDT), William Crowell
<retrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Believing anything on faith is the antithesis of science. Science is about testing theories empirically, but by definition beliefs based on faith cannot be tested. circulus in probando.

When I was a teenager, I read an excerpt from Descartes, and set out
to follow his example.

I soon learned that *everything*, at the bottom, is faith.

Cogito, ergo sum. But how do I know that I cogito?

I finally hit upon, "If I don't exist, there is no point in going on
with this exercise, therefore I shall assume that I exist."

Not as punchy as "cogito", but more accurate.

Every system has to start somewhere, and that somewhere is simply
assumed; you can't prove it.

And sometimes you get equally-valid systems from contradictory
assumptions -- consider hyperbolic, euclidean, and elliptic
geometries, all of them useful in the real world.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 09:17:29 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> (:-) It was once a know fact that the sun traveled around the earth.
> The Church even guaranteed it and even a fool could look up and see it
> with his/her/its own eyes (:-)

When I park my bike and want to know where the shade will be when I
come back, the geocentric model works much better than the
heliocentric model.

[AMuzi]

+1

[Tom Kunich]

Religion isn't some natives in a village worshiping a volcano in Spain. I suggest you return to the New Testament.

[Tom Kunich]

I have succinctly explained why CO2 has no effect. The sky is blue and only the lower, thicker atmosphere retains heat. The only way that this can occur is if the sunlight warms the Earth which then conducts the infrared heat through the lower atmosphere into the upper atmosphere through simple conduction where the Sun's emissions can then exchange energy with the upper atmosphere and heat that to the point where it can radiate the energy away. I have shown many times that the spectrum lines of CO2 are not in the energy bands of the Sun. But actual information isn't withing the purview of people like Jay or Frank or John to understand,

[Tom Kunich]

Well, there we have it. John yearns more for stability than freedom. And he will get neither.

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 8:13:04 PM UTC+1, William Crowell wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote: "The God Hypothesis has returned, bigly,"
>
> There is something I don't understand about The God Hypothesis. Yes, there is only a "one over ten to the 63rd power" chance of humans having turned out exactly the way we did, BUT there IS a 100% probability that humans would turn out SOME way, and this just happens to be the way we turned out. Am I wrong? Am I wrong?

.
Who can know, William? But, statistically, there are likely so many planets in the universe that have the very limited spectrum of conditions in which intelligent life could conceivably arise that it not impossible that there is another planet whose dominant life form mirrors our planet's: the cockroach.

But the chances of the first aliens to land being humanoid must be pretty low. Quite obviously, the guy from a Jupiter-like planet in a distant galaxy will look like three square miles of granite because otherwise he wouldn't prosper in his home planet's gravity.

On the whole, my guess about all the possible intelligent and civilized inhabitants of the universe being made "in His likeness" is wishful thinking by the religious. (Sorry, Deacon Mark.) It's just not good physics or good statistics, no matter that it is not impossible either.

But so much that is weird about the universe has in my lifetime become accepted science that the probabilities drop a couple of zeroes after the decimal point every decade...

Andre Jute
Called for drinks before dinner.

[Andre Jute]

.
That's only to be expected, Jay. As you told us the other day, you insist on hiring the lowest denominator of employee because you abhor "stars". --- AJ

[jbeattie]

About what are you talking? I never said that and never would. We have hired a constellation of stars, many of whom became my partners. One of my partners has an undergraduate degree in dead languages from Stanford, and I'll see if she's heard of a "knout." My secretary nka "assistant" is a non-practicing California attorney. I'll try her on Monday and see if she knows. I'll bring it up in the break room -- just to get a sense of the general understanding of "knout." I'll stop people on the street, "say mister, have you ever heard of a knout?" Maybe its one of those Game of Thrones things that everyone knows but me. I've been surprised before -- or can you say that? Before is a preposition. Before I have been surprised.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

It turns out that the chances of other intelligent life in the Universe living at the same time as the Human race is nearly nil. Even with an unlimited universe. Even things like the Earth having a Moon which stabilizes the orbit of Earth and forces a 24 hour day which in turn stabilizes the temperature extremes is of ABSOLUTE necessity. While the loonies are talking about CO2 growth, they don't even realize that we were in a carbon drought on the very edge of complete life extinction. With the very slight additional CO2 from man's additions, the Earth has bloomed, forests are growing again, sea life is on a HUGE bloom with the vast expansion of plankton, the basis of sea life, has caused every part of sea life to expand tremendously.

There isn't one thing peculiar about the Earth that isn't absolutely necessary to support life, and not just life but ONLY the sort of life that can exist. Only carbon can have sufficient molecule variances. So this demands H2O and an EXTREMELY limited temperature range. No other element but carbon is capable of this. And no other plane is statistically likely to have the absolutely necessary set of circumstances that gave us life upon this Earth.

This is why the God hypothesis is probably a better bet than anything else.

The more that man learns about the world around him, the most he realizes that there has to be a God.

[William Crowell]

"Before I have been surprised."

timespeak, right. Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind!

[Tom Kunich]

Why don't you know what a knout is? Perhaps a simple knowledge of Roman history would enlighten you? It is a type of whip which had multiple ends that often had rocks looped into the leather thongs so that it left permanent scars. Seem like the sort of thing you would like to see used upon anyone that disagrees with you.

[jbeattie]

Dear Braniac, "knout" is an English word that is French transliteration of the Russian word кнут (knut). The last time I checked, the Romans were not Russians. "Whip," "scourge," "cat o'nine tails" I get, and the Roman word for whip is "flagrum," at least according to the interweb. I do not claim to be a Latin scholar and leave that up to Andre. I certainly understand the general concept of whips, having bought a bull whip in Juarez when I was a kid. Every kid wanted a whip. It was pretty useless without a bull. At least I didn't put anyone's eye out.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 8:57:55 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> It turns out that the chances of other intelligent life in the Universe living at the same time as the Human race is nearly nil. Even with an unlimited universe.

.
The key phrase isn't even about the size of the universe, which is commonly accepted as beyond comprehension, but "living at the same time as the Human race ". It's what makes the possibility, while not precisely nil, and infinitely small number. The light reaching us from nearby galaxies in the Milky Way may well be from civilizations that rose and fell billions of years before homo whatever rose up onto his hind legs forever: their planets and suns can be long, long gone but we can still see their light because we live in their future. If they existed, of course.

.
> The more that man learns about the world around him, the most he realizes that there has to be a God.

That's a growing realization among the philosophers of science, especially the ones studying biohistory as revealed by DNA. Stephen Meyer isn't alone.

Andre Jute

[Tom Kunich]

This is what is causing Democrats like the group here to shit their pants. That they may be held responsible for their actions for eternity is something they're not able to deal with. This is why politicians may proclaim religion to make them part of a group, but they don't actually believe in it precisely because they don't EVER want to be held to account for their actions.

[John B.]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:41:12 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich

Tell us more about your hypothetical freedom.

Are you free to own any firearm that you want? Nope. Are you free to
take your neighbor's new car if you want to? Nope. Are you free to say
anything that you want to? Well, you can say it but if you bad mouth
Jay he can take you to court and get all your assets, so I guess you
are not free to say anything you want to. Are you free to ingest any
chemical that you wish? Nope. Are you free to raise any crop that you
wish? Nope.

So just what are your freedoms?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[pH]

On 2021-09-22, William Crowell <retrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> She recently wrote that “this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”.
>
> How disappointing that she doesn't know the difference between "comprise" (a transitive verb) and "compose" (an intransitive verb). She's using the transitive verb in an intransitive sentence structure. I would have expected better grammar from a Supreme Court justice.

Wow, I think I would have made that error, too. Thank-you for the lesson.
(and I'm not joking whatsoever)

pH

[John B.]

"Knout"? "Roman history"?

The word "Knout" The English word stems from a spelling-pronunciation
of a French transliteration of the Russian word (knut), which simply
means "whip".

It is Russian, not Roman.

(Tommy Boy strikes out yet again)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

.
More like Ignorant Shortass gabbles along with Portland Legal Eagle Who Misspent His Youth Ogling Girls Rather than Recite his Amo Amas Amamus Amant, which would have been more impressive to the girls than awkward, tongue-tied teenage doe-eyeing.

The knout is actually a multiple stiff whip, descended from the Roman cat-of-nine-tails, but one requires a proper education or much reading to work it out.

You're truly the Dilettante of Dumb, Slow Johnny.

Andre Jute
Amazingly, the depth of Short Jonnny's ignorance on any subject is matched by the breadth of subjects in which he is outstandingly ignorant..

[Andre Jute]

I take the view that she has grammar quite as good as William's, and carefully chose the "wrong" word to forestall the mainstream media screeching, "Gotcha! Gotcha! You admitted to 'composing' and just the other day a judge accused General Flynn of composing his confession of perjury under pressure from the FBI. Resign! Resign!" You think scum like that will retract a juicy "victory" because William explains to them that she used the correct word, whatever they may think she meant? -- AJ

[Tom Kunich]

There you go - John's definition of freedom is to be able to commit robbery without any punishment. This is the person posting here from Thailand where they would kill him for doing that.

[Tom Kunich]

I do find it amazing that anyone that could even bother to look up the word in a Latin dictionary could find it, But then most of the people here have never opened a dictionary in their lives.

[John B.]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 07:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich

See there you go again. I asked you "what are your freedoms" and can't
answer.

So, I'll ask again, "What are these freedoms that you are ranting
about?"

(and I'm guessing that you will answer with more threats and evasions
since as usual you don't know what you are talking about)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 07:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich

<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 11:44:52 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 2:44:54 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
>> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:02:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > >Why don't you know what a knout is? Perhaps a simple knowledge of Roman history would enlighten you? It is a type of whip which had multiple ends that often had rocks looped into the leather thongs so that it left permanent scars. Seem like the sort of thing you would like to see used upon anyone that disagrees with you.
>> > "Knout"? "Roman history"?
>> >
>> > The word "Knout" The English word stems from a spelling-pronunciation
>> > of a French transliteration of the Russian word (knut), which simply
>> > means "whip".
>> >
>> > It is Russian, not Roman.
>> >
>> > (Tommy Boy strikes out yet again)
>> > --
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > John B.
>> .
>> More like Ignorant Shortass gabbles along with Portland Legal Eagle Who Misspent His Youth Ogling Girls Rather than Recite his Amo Amas Amamus Amant, which would have been more impressive to the girls than awkward, tongue-tied teenage doe-eyeing.
>>
>> The knout is actually a multiple stiff whip, descended from the Roman cat-of-nine-tails, but one requires a proper education or much reading to work it out.
>>
>> You're truly the Dilettante of Dumb, Slow Johnny.
>>
>> Andre Jute
>> Amazingly, the depth of Short Jonnny's ignorance on any subject is matched by the breadth of subjects in which he is outstandingly ignorant..


>I do find it amazing that anyone that could even bother to look up the word in a Latin dictionary could find it, But then most of the people here have never opened a dictionary in their lives.

Ah Tommy Boy, such a wealth of stupidity.

I went to a "Latin dictionary", just as you suggest
https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?parola=knout
and guess what, the definition I get is "The search for knout did not
return any results."

So, once again the Indominal Tommy strikes again... displaying his
ignorance!
--
Cheers,

John B.

[William Crowell]

An old, slow guy asked: "How many standard deviations above the mean is it to have the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court that we have, as opposed to a S.C. composition in which Catholics represented only their proportionate share of the population?"

Apparently 5 of the 9 justices are catholic: Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Thomas and Kavanaugh.

According to an online standard deviation calculator (and assuming I entered the data correctly), the mean would be a little under 2 of the justices being Catholic (Catholics being approximately 22% of the population, X 9 justices), and 5 is 3 standard deviations above that mean! That's bigly!

Did I do the calculation correctly? Fire away, bros.

[Tom Kunich]

Ask me if I care if an old fool can't find his ass with both hands.

[Tom Kunich]

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 7:16:25 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Only the world's most stupid people would believe that the Russians invented the whip. https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh14478

[AMuzi]

Genius linguists not needed. Latin & Italian do not have a "K".

[AMuzi]

Flipping a coin and getting three or four heads in a row
isn't noteworthy.

If you sampled all 1700 Federal judges you'd still expect
differences to the distribution of any characteristc in a
nation of 330 million.

[AMuzi]

Every culture has things of that nature.
Classical Rome had scourges, Knouts are different.
And 'knout' can't be a Latin word; no 'K' in Latin.

[Tom Kunich]

The K sound is one of the most common in ALL languages. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WzpPc1LwUrM/S_EuWz7RiYI/AAAAAAAAAjs/i-DFcD9fB98/s1600/AncientLatinOmniglot.JPG

[AMuzi]

When King Canute acquired England and became a Catholic
Christian, he Latinized his name from Knut to Canute.

[Andre Jute]

.
Well, everyone knows I'm a genius, and I am a linguist, and it has long been my contention that the real Romans said Kaiser when you and I would write and spell Caesar. -- AJ

[Andre Jute]

.
And one of those differences would be that people who adhere to organized principles would gravitate towards the bench. People who adhere to organized principles is a very good description of Catholics, and even of the best lawyers.

Andre Jute
Only the most idiotic engineers think statistics are about averages and thus purely mathematical.

[AMuzi]

As we all pause to remember our beloved Classics instructors:
ah way kai sar!

[John B.]

Well, if you want the Court to "fairly" support the rather diverse
U.S. population then certainly there must be Black member, a Jewish
member, an Irish American, a Italian American, A French American
(think Northern New England and Louisiana), and probably at least one
from New England (very conservative they are) and in opposition one
from the "deep south" (very different attitude toward social matters),
and certainly one from Texas, and don't forget California(the land of
the Fruits and Nuts), and, and, and...
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

I've been away from statistical work for a while, but for such small numbers, simple standard deviation calculations
are not worth much. IIRC, you need to at least look into Student's T test.

- Frank Krygowski

[2wheelfan]

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 10:25:26 AM UTC-4, deaconm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 9:20:23 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 7:01:39 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> > > That is certainly a fair question, Tom. Given the lies and incompetence of the lamestream media, it is quite possible that they reported her words incorrectly. I have been trying to find a video of that speech, which she gave on September 12 at the McConnell Center, University of Louisville, but haven't found it yet.
> > Well, lets remember that the Lame Stream Media is willing to tell us what a great public speaker Biden is (he never was) so I wouldn't be at all surprised that they are willing to misquote a conservative justice.
> Amy Coney Barrett is a brilliant legal mind and judge. I am behind her all the way...........go Amy Go.
> Deacon Mark
Damn right. Justice Barrett, we are relieved and joyful to know you are one of the Nine.

[William Crowell]

I agree that there must be some reason why so many Catholics have been appointed to the USSC, Andre. Yours is a pretty good attempt at finding a reason. If indeed these justices really believe their catechism literally, then they were brainwashed by it as children. Of course these justices were appointed because they are conservative, and maybe because they are pro-life. Justices like that actually split the pro-life movement when they base their beliefs on their religion because many pro-lifers don't want to associate with fanciful beliefs. Now the justices say they don't base their decisions on their religious faith, but in light of their far-fetched religious beliefs how can you really believe them?

[AMuzi]

On 9/27/2021 8:37 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 11:59:59 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 4:41:30 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 9/26/2021 9:01 AM, William Crowell wrote:
>>>> An old, slow guy asked: "How many standard deviations above the mean is it to have the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court that we have, as opposed to a S.C. composition in which Catholics represented only their proportionate share of the population?"
>>>>
>>>> Apparently 5 of the 9 justices are catholic: Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Thomas and Kavanaugh.
>>>>
>>>> According to an online standard deviation calculator (and assuming I entered the data correctly), the mean would be a little under 2 of the justices being Catholic (Catholics being approximately 22% of the population, X 9 justices), and 5 is 3 standard deviations above that mean! That's bigly!
>>>>
>>>> Did I do the calculation correctly? Fire away, bros.
>>>>
>>> Flipping a coin and getting three or four heads in a row
>>> isn't noteworthy.
>>>
>>> If you sampled all 1700 Federal judges you'd still expect
>>> differences to the distribution of any characteristc in a
>>> nation of 330 million.

>> And one of those differences would be that people who adhere to organized principles would gravitate towards the bench. People who adhere to organized principles is a very good description of Catholics, and even of the best lawyers.
>>
>> Andre Jute
>> Only the most idiotic engineers think statistics are about averages and thus purely mathematical.
>
> I agree that there must be some reason why so many Catholics have been appointed to the USSC, Andre. Yours is a pretty good attempt at finding a reason. If indeed these justices really believe their catechism literally, then they were brainwashed by it as children. Of course these justices were appointed because they are conservative, and maybe because they are pro-life. Justices like that actually split the pro-life movement when they base their beliefs on their religion because many pro-lifers don't want to associate with fanciful beliefs. Now the justices say they don't base their decisions on their religious faith, but in light of their far-fetched religious beliefs how can you really believe them?
>

i don't know.

But one might make the same argument for atheists or Jews or
any coherent pattern of thought or belief (which leaves
Unitarians who don't have any beliefs so far as I can tell).

[Frank Krygowski]

I have quite a few Unitarian friends. From what I can tell, they all
seem to have a strong belief in coffee.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

John, are you saying that only black people can understand black people? Only Hispanics, Hispanics etc? You must think you're in a hell of a mess in Thailand.

[Tom Kunich]

There are far left radical members here that could not say that. They do not believe in strict interpretations of the Constitution.

[Tom Kunich]

Bill, I think that there is too much controversy over whether or not it is a woman's right to take a human life in the protestant movement. There are none of these questions among Catholics. But it isn't the religion that is being submitted but the Conservative beliefs. They posted some YouTube videos of an abortion before they turned completely communist and that shocked people do much that the nation as a whole is completely pro-life. Only the radical anti-religionists want the right to murder a beating heart.

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 2:37:19 PM UTC+1, William Crowell wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 11:59:59 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 4:41:30 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
> > > On 9/26/2021 9:01 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> > > > An old, slow guy asked: "How many standard deviations above the mean is it to have the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court that we have, as opposed to a S.C. composition in which Catholics represented only their proportionate share of the population?"
> > > >
> > > > Apparently 5 of the 9 justices are catholic: Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Thomas and Kavanaugh.
> > > >
> > > > According to an online standard deviation calculator (and assuming I entered the data correctly), the mean would be a little under 2 of the justices being Catholic (Catholics being approximately 22% of the population, X 9 justices), and 5 is 3 standard deviations above that mean! That's bigly!
> > > >
> > > > Did I do the calculation correctly? Fire away, bros.
> > > >
> > > Flipping a coin and getting three or four heads in a row
> > > isn't noteworthy.
> > >
> > > If you sampled all 1700 Federal judges you'd still expect
> > > differences to the distribution of any characteristc in a
> > > nation of 330 million.
> > > --
> > > Andrew Muzi
> > > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> > .
> > And one of those differences would be that people who adhere to organized principles would gravitate towards the bench. People who adhere to organized principles is a very good description of Catholics, and even of the best lawyers.
> > Andre Jute
> > Only the most idiotic engineers think statistics are about averages and thus purely mathematical.
> I agree that there must be some reason why so many Catholics have been appointed to the USSC, Andre. Yours is a pretty good attempt at finding a reason. If indeed these justices really believe their catechism literally,
>

Hold it right there, William. I didn't say Justices believe their catechism literally. Those are your words, and your argument, not mine. I merely wrote about growing up with structured concepts as almost any kid from a stable home does. Andrew has offered some other examples.

>
>>then they were brainwashed by it as children.
>

Nor did I say they were brainwashed. Nor will I ever say it because I do not believe they could be brainwashed, even as children. I speak from authority here. Before I became an economist, I was superbly well trained to be a psychiatrist but never practiced because what I actually did, practice motivation in advertising, paid magnitudes more. I was very likely in my time the world's leading authority on subliminal motivation, and certainly the most successful motivator in industry and commerce. So I tell you for a fact that strong-minded people cannot be brainwashed. A fast way to determine if anyone is suggestible enough to be brainwashed is to try hypnotizing them. I wish the aspirant Svengalis from the fairgrounds luck with trying to hypnotize any Supreme Court Justice. It's a ludicrous idea, and i hope the Supremes are pissed off enough about the impertinence to put the wannabe influencer away for a good long stretch.

>
>>Of course these justices were appointed because they are conservative, and maybe because they are pro-life.
>

Really? The late Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be very surprised to receive your email hotfooting this amazing news via ouija board.

>
>>Justices like that actually split the pro-life movement when they base their beliefs on their religion because many pro-lifers don't want to associate with fanciful beliefs.
>

I don't consider myself qualified to judge whether other people's beliefs are fanciful. I'm a rationalist. One of the few things I know for a fact is that people who claim to have all the answers, especially about other people's religion, are reckless idiots.

>
Now the justices say they don't base their decisions on their religious faith, but in light of their far-fetched religious beliefs how can you really believe them?
>

You may choose whether to believe any or all of them or not by judging the quality of their reasoning over a period of time. That I am qualified -- and willing -- to do.
>
Andre Jute
The United States Supreme Court has on the whole a superbly trustworthy record but I won't argue against those who believe they take too long to correct injustices.

[Andre Jute]

A senior churchman told, "Episcopalians? (1) They don't know what they believe in."

Andre Jute
(1) Meaning the Anglicans' Church in America, the one aligned to the Anglican Church in Britain commonly known as the Church of England. There is also a more conservative Anglican Church in America, entirely separate.

[News 2021]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 11:51:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski scribed:

That is the USA's real problem.
The stable english law system was developed by tea drinkers. vbg

[John B.]

You really don't read very well, do you. I was commenting on the
argument that because there are X numbers of any minority group that
they should be judges.

Oh Yes! Just to increase your knowledge of the world and the people
there in, we have very, very, few "black people" in Thailand.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

And you just made the same really stupid conclusion. Because most judges are white that they couldn't possibly judge criminal cases involving blacks properly. It might interest you to know that white judges are usually less strict with blacks than black judges. Are white judges being less strict or are black judges being too strict? But that would require knowledge that you so woefully lack.

[John B.]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:04:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich

No Tommy. You wrote that "only black people can understand black

people? Only Hispanics, Hispanics etc? You must think you're in a hell
of a mess in Thailand."

I was simply pointing out that there are very, very, few "Blacks" in
Thailand so we couldn't be a hell of a mess because of Blacks. And
yes, I did ignore Hispanics as there are even fewer here then Blacks.

See Tommy, you get all excited and run about chasing your tail and
barking at the moon and it turns out that you don't know what you are
talking about.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

John, your racist attitudes couldn't be plainer if you donned your KKK costume.

[John B.]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:19:34 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich

Tommy, Tommy, your imagination is running away with you. What racist
attitudes? I have lived, largely by preference, in a country(s) where
I am a racial minority, and have done so for more then half my adult
life.

Oh yes, while the hood isn't part of the costume white robes, here,
would be a an indication that one was a very strict, albeit layman,
follower of the Buddhist religion.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

You're the one saying that only black justices could possibly understand black problems or only Asians could possibly understand Asian problems. Whether you live in a country where you are a minority or not that hasn't seemed to change you opinion on how rotten the rest of the non-white world is.