What makes a 'function' smooth.
V.Gopal
1) Continuous unchanging information - duration of the state of
equilibrium, uniform velocity, a thing expressed directly as the
function of time, when a thing is an element of itself, a thing
expressed as the function of itself e.g. dX=f(X)and X=F(dX), the idea
of a fluid like eather, 'space' in geometry, time, SLEEP without any
dream, silence of the mind like meditation. All have internal
contiguity and have no parts (smooth is continuous and partless).
Anything whose first derivative is constant or zero is smooth. Any
number can be used to specify its physical (space-time) dimension. The
smooth cannot have a description of its own. We cannot associate
reason or cause with any of these.
The following also are smooth - Continuously and (and orderly) change
in information involving a finite space-time: It involves continuous
change in reference and continuous forgetting of the past.
State of change, a thing/activity expressed as the function of itself,
the formula for making a zero-error prediction, thinking in order to
find the means of achieving a goal, MEDITATION, dX=F(X) but X is not
F(dX), elongation, explosion, implosion, a thing/activity expressed
indirectly as the continuous function of time like radioactive decay,
chain reaction, creation, motion under gravity, uniform acceleration,
a field of influence, PV=RT. We ahve to associate cause and effect
with these functions and activities. These smooth functions and
activities are incommunicable.
Smoothness is is lost if there is discontinuity, if there are
space-corpuscles in space and time corpuscles in time, if state of
change is replaced by series of equilibrium states. PV=constant is not
smooth (but PV=RT is smooth)
A smooth function/activity has to be understood by psychophysical
parallelism, intellectual sympathy, introspection and meditation.
Everything in nature is smooth. No language is smooth. Nature is meant
to enhance our capacity for sympathy, introspection and meditation. We
can realize the exictence of God only by understanding 'The smooth'.
Uncle Al
[snip]
> A smooth function/activity has to be understood by psychophysical
> parallelism, intellectual sympathy, introspection and meditation.
> Everything in nature is smooth. No language is smooth.
[snip]
Learn some math.
Cargo cultism - whether it is some idiot native constructing a
thatched hut to emulate an airfield control tower or some idiot New
Age wombat screaming "look at meeeee!" - is a null set. The universe
doesn't care what you think, (heck, neither do we). OTOH, if you do
something clever with geometry, algebra follows in lockstop via
Euler's equation.
You aren't clever. Shannonizing technical vocabulary in hopes of a
hit has the same statistics as Saddamn Hussein lighting up Bagdhad
skies with anti-aircraft fire during the first night of Desert Storm.
The real guardians of civilization flew in, bombed the living shit out
of anything they desired, and flew out with a single casualty. No
Stealth aircraft was hit in 1271 missions. Does Allah have execrable
aim? Test of faith!
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Gregory L. Hansen
V.Gopal <vgop...@rediffmail.com> wrote:
>A smooth function/activity has to be understood by psychophysical
>parallelism, intellectual sympathy, introspection and meditation.
df/dx exists along the domain of the function.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Franz Heymann
"V.Gopal" <vgop...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:38af3945.02093...@posting.google.com...
You have a mild attack of verbal diarrhoea. It is not fatal, but it
stinks.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Van de moortel
"V.Gopal" <vgop...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message news:38af3945.02093...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> A smooth function
is a function with a continuous derivative.
Dirk Vdm
Bryan Reed
In the math classes I took, it was a function where all derivatives are
continuous. But of course usage varies with context.
Bryan
Jeremy
news:38af3945.02093...@posting.google.com...
Well, I know some people think smooth functions are more sexy then ones that
aren't...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bryan Reed" <bwr...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:analvd$22u2$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
I know. There was a recent thread on this on sci.math :-)
We called the functions you are describing "infinitely smooth".
Dirk Vdm
Maleki
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
<3D98A9DC...@hate.spam.net> that:
>Cargo cultism -
I've seen you more than once uttering this. The notion
itself says you're stupid.
You misunderstood that "cargo" thing. You
misinterpreted their intention and incentives. You did
the same mistake (together with that jackass "Feynman")
that your archaeologists do everyday describing why
there are ornaments and even food left with the dead of
5000 years back, etc.
There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do
not qualify to bother with. Don't exhibit that void
then all the time, it doesn't look good.
Robert Kolker
V.Gopal wrote:
> The following functions/activities/qualities/processess are smooth:
> A smooth function/activity has to be understood by psychophysical
> parallelism, intellectual sympathy, introspection and meditation.
> Everything in nature is smooth. No language is smooth. Nature is meant
> to enhance our capacity for sympathy, introspection and meditation. We
> can realize the exictence of God only by understanding 'The smooth'.
Too complicated. What makes functions smooth is the existence of
derivatives of sufficiently high order. You are outputing poetry, not
mathematics.
God reveals Himself in the discontinuities and the jumps too.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Maleki wrote:
> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing. You
> misinterpreted their intention and incentives. You did
> the same mistake (together with that jackass "Feynman")
One of the smartest "Jackasses" that ever lived. One Feynman is worth
100,000 of you. And I am being extremely generous.
>
> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do
> not qualify to bother with. Don't exhibit that void
> then all the time, it doesn't look good.
We will leave those aspects the the babu-s and the third worlders. As
they wallow in their squallor and filth they can feel superior to us
materialistic Westerners. When they are not busy circumcizing their
females they can look down on us.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>One of the smartest "Jackasses" that ever lived. One Feynman is worth
>100,000 of you. And I am being extremely generous.
Now you are one sad ass "person" worshipper.
Feynman is not worth more than 1 person you frellin
dipbag.
He could even had a problem with the difference between
static and dynamic friction.
You are a clueless worshipper.
Get a life dingbat.
once you get one,
you can be smarter that Feynman too,
but only if you try,
and only if you stop worshipping his ass.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Gregory L. Hansen
If just the first derivative is continuous, that's enough to ensure there
are no corners in the function.
V.Gopal
If this posting has made so many angry and go out of track, I am sure
I make sense. In any case let me know whether PV=RT and PV=ocnstant
both are smooth OR only PV=RT is smooth and PV=constant (series of
equilibrium states) not smooth. If you make a distinction how did you
make it. I hope I will get an answer and not angry words.
puppe...@hotmail.com
[snip]
> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do
> not qualify to bother with.
Oh, sure, if you want it that way. I'll keep my nose out of
feces smeared, rat infested, half starved coddling non-western
business, if they will just never put their smelly, dirty
fingernailed, disease ridden bodies anywhere that has anything
to do with western things. Like, say, computer networks.
Or modern metallurgy. Or modern medicine. Or airplanes.
Or automobiles. Or television.
Socks
Maleki
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in
<3D996101...@attbi.com> that:
>
>
>Maleki wrote:
>> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing. You
>> misinterpreted their intention and incentives. You did
>> the same mistake (together with that jackass "Feynman")
>
>One of the smartest "Jackasses" that ever lived.
That's my point. If he blows it, any Westerner blows
it. He was as good as a jackass in interpreting those
South Seas people's intention (and incentive).
>One Feynman is worth
>100,000 of you. And I am being extremely generous.
>>
I really wished you were a person who could benefit
even from 100,000 Feynmans, let alone one Maleki.
>> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do
>> not qualify to bother with. Don't exhibit that void
>> then all the time, it doesn't look good.
>
>We will leave those aspects the the babu-s and the third worlders.
I wish you would, but you don't. The very term "cargo
cult science" shows it. Nothing personal against you,
but I just think in some matters that almost always
involve other cultures Al is stupid, Feynman is stupid,
you are stupid. All Westerners indeed. You're too
isolated, so no wonder. You know what stupid means,
don't you. Stupid is one who even when somebody takes
time to bring a fact to his attention and tells him
right in his face, he still doesn't get it.
I always get that feeling with Westerners, especially
Americans. The feeling of talking to rural stubborn
minds; "jackasses"; the more ignorant a sample, the
closer the feeling to what I experienced years back
with rural Iranians. When you'd advise them about
keeping their teeth healthy, their mouths would open in
smiles of contempt for me, ear to ear, unawaringly
displaying their brown and dark yellow rows of diseased
teeth. They did have a point, you know. Exactly your
point.
Edward Green
...
> A smooth function/activity has to be understood by psychophysical
> parallelism, intellectual sympathy, introspection and meditation.
> Everything in nature is smooth. No language is smooth. Nature is meant
> to enhance our capacity for sympathy, introspection and meditation. We
> can realize the exictence of God only by understanding 'The smooth'.
Enough said. ;)
Edward Green
> In article <38af3945.02093...@posting.google.com>,
> V.Gopal <vgop...@rediffmail.com> wrote:
>
> >A smooth function/activity has to be understood by psychophysical
> >parallelism, intellectual sympathy, introspection and meditation.
>
> df/dx exists along the domain of the function.
And the domain doesn't have any holes.
(Searching for a quibble).
Otherwise you could have
y = 0 (x < 0)
y = x (x > 0)
y undefined (x = 0)
One might also quible about functions like y = sin(1/x)/x
The function is continuous everywhere and the derivative exists
everywhere, but if you rode the function into x = 0, you would take an
infinitely nauseating roller coster ride.
Edward Green
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 08:45:49 GMT, Robert Kolker
> <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote ...
> >Maleki the cultural bigot wrote:
> >> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing. You
> >> misinterpreted their intention and incentives. You did
> >> the same mistake (together with that jackass "Feynman")
> >
> >One of the smartest "Jackasses" that ever lived.
>
> That's my point. If he blows it, any Westerner blows
> it.
The best way to discredit bigots like you is to get you angry. Up to
that point you might seem smooth and polished, like Lord Ha-Ha, but
once you are angry or backed into a corner, the real bigotry comes out
plenty clear.
So you thesis is rougly (1) there is a group of people called
"westerners" (2) Feynman dominates all westerners (3) therefore if
Feyman is wrong in any analysis (for the sake of argument) all
westerners are stupid.
Very impressive.
You've as much as said you hate the US and you hate the west, and you
are mainly fishing around for ways to justify your irrational hatred.
<snip>
> I wish you would, but you don't. The very term "cargo
> cult science" shows it. Nothing personal against you,
> but I just think in some matters that almost always
> involve other cultures Al is stupid, Feynman is stupid,
> you are stupid. All Westerners indeed. You're too
> isolated, so no wonder.
What horseshit. And you continue to make sweeping generalizations
about 100's of millions of people. That looks a little culturally
challenged to me. This kind of crap would only make sense to others
who started with your mindset, and were similarly searching for
pseudo-justifications for their hatred.
But it is a waste of time refuting you ... I wouldn't want to fall
into your logically challenged state by thinking that by dicrediting
Maleki I discredited millions of people. No ... the best I can do is
show Maleki to be an irrational individual bigot. Since that fact is
pretty much self-evident to most anybody who reads your rant, I guess
we can take it as read.
Gregory L. Hansen
Edward Green <null...@aol.com> wrote:
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
>news:<anaag8$avk$3...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> In article <38af3945.02093...@posting.google.com>,
>> V.Gopal <vgop...@rediffmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A smooth function/activity has to be understood by psychophysical
>> >parallelism, intellectual sympathy, introspection and meditation.
>>
>> df/dx exists along the domain of the function.
>
>And the domain doesn't have any holes.
>
>(Searching for a quibble).
>
>Otherwise you could have
>
>y = 0 (x < 0)
>y = x (x > 0)
>y undefined (x = 0)
I do like "derivative is continous" better, that's probably the real
definition of smooth. I was figuring that at a sharp corner, like
x=0 for y=|x|, the derivative is ambiguous. Approach it from the right
and it's 1, approach it from the left and it's -1, but right at x=0 there
is no derivative. Same thing, I suppose, unless you carefully define
f(x) = -x for x >= 0
= x for x < 0
"Greater than or equals" removes the ambiguity.
>
>One might also quible about functions like y = sin(1/x)/x
>
>The function is continuous everywhere and the derivative exists
>everywhere, but if you rode the function into x = 0, you would take an
>infinitely nauseating roller coster ride.
Robert Kolker
Edward Green wrote:
> But it is a waste of time refuting you ... I wouldn't want to fall
> into your logically challenged state by thinking that by dicrediting
> Maleki I discredited millions of people. No ... the best I can do is
> show Maleki to be an irrational individual bigot. Since that fact is
> pretty much self-evident to most anybody who reads your rant, I guess
> we can take it as read.
There goes your Wog. Different mountain, different God.
Bob Kolker
Bill Taylor
|> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing.
|> You misinterpreted their intention and incentives.
|>
|> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do
|> not qualify to bother with.
Well don't just leave it there! Please enlighten us!!
Tell us what WERE the intentions and incentives of the Papuans who set out
the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor W.Ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memes don't exist - pass it on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Maleki
On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 00:11:07 GMT, Robert Kolker
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in
<3D9A39E0...@attbi.com> that:
Maleki
mat...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) wrote in
<andl5a$itl$2...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz> that:
>Maleki <male...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>|> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing.
>|> You misinterpreted their intention and incentives.
>|>
>|> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do
>|> not qualify to bother with.
>
>Well don't just leave it there! Please enlighten us!!
>
>Tell us what WERE the intentions and incentives of the Papuans who set out
>the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
>
I want Green and Kolkor pay money for my answer :) And
I feel like every Western archaeologist's wife should
suck my dick for the one paragraph answer I could give
to their two hundred years of stupidity and confusion
in making such interpretations. And there's more: I'm
not bragging nonsense! Anybody could see the simple
truth of it after reading it.
Gregory L. Hansen
Bill Taylor <mat...@math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Maleki <male...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>|> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing.
>|> You misinterpreted their intention and incentives.
>|>
>|> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do
>|> not qualify to bother with.
>
>Well don't just leave it there! Please enlighten us!!
>
>Tell us what WERE the intentions and incentives of the Papuans who set out
>the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
Building the radio huts with sticks for antennas, drilling in military
fashion with sticks for rifles...
Randy Poe
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 02:20:26 +0000 (UTC),
> mat...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) wrote in
>>the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
>>
>
>
> I want Green and Kolkor pay money for my answer :) And
> I feel like every Western archaeologist's wife should
> suck my dick for the one paragraph answer I could give
Interesting. So your basic internal conflict is a hatred
of the west mixed with deep-seated sexual fantasies about
western women. A Freudian could have a field day here.
Refusal to answer noted.
- Randy
Uncle Al
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 02:20:26 +0000 (UTC),
> mat...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) wrote in
> <andl5a$itl$2...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz> that:
>
> >Maleki <male...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >|> You misunderstood that "cargo" thing.
> >|> You misinterpreted their intention and incentives.
> >|>
> >|> There are some aspects of humanities that Westerners do
> >|> not qualify to bother with.
> >
> >Well don't just leave it there! Please enlighten us!!
> >
> >Tell us what WERE the intentions and incentives of the Papuans who set out
> >the cargo-cult airfields. I would really like to hear about them.
> >
>
> I want Green and Kolkor pay money for my answer
What is the assigned value of the null set?
Cargo cultism is the basis of each and all religions - "Lord, please
change the nature of physical reality for my benefit. I will worship
you and hurt myself in repayment." Science is equally simply stated -
mathematically model reality with empirical boundary conditions, then
go with the flow.
Cargo cultism can be accessed by any credulous moron with blood to
bleed. The Third World is loaded with four billion scrofulous chumps,
and the Second World with another billion. Science requires a working
brain and significant personal committment. The First World contains
about a billion sleek and clean folk. Of those, perhaps only 2%
qualify as lightbringers - and it works.
America = a fantatistically wealthy ruling class, an expansive wealthy
middle class, and a minor well-to-do underclass. The worst LA,
Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, New York... slums have individual
homes, clean running water, sanitation, heat and air conditioning,
Cable TV, public education, public transportation, public
libraries...; subsidized rent, subsidized food, free legal
representation, free medical care... Compare with a Brazilian favela.
America + god = Mexico or Arabia; a fantastically wealthy ruling
class, a small well-to-do middle class, and a vast ulcerous underclass
wailing to god as they carve their initials in their surviving
children's flesh. Of course, Muslims literally carve their kids'
flesh - but only the genitalia. It's God's will.
Robert Kolker
Uncle Al wrote:
> America + god = Mexico or Arabia; a fantastically wealthy ruling
> class, a small well-to-do middle class, and a vast ulcerous underclass
> wailing to god as they carve their initials in their surviving
> children's flesh. Of course, Muslims literally carve their kids'
> flesh - but only the genitalia. It's God's will.
Jews do also. Einstein was circumsized. It is not known whether any of
his sons were. In any case, circumcision produces two benefits. 1. Less
cancer of the glans. 2. Erections maintained for long periods of time.
Getting rid of the foreskin is like taking out the tonsils. It is not
required, but it has some benefits.
Also the tool is easier to keep clean. No smegma, that cottage cheese
from Hell.
Bob Kolker
Maleki
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
<3D9B0835...@hate.spam.net> that:
>> I want Green and Kolkor pay money for my answer
>[snip]
>
>What is the assigned value of the null set?
I want it out of their pockets, not yours. I have other
plans for you :) You'll know better when you first
touch your forehead down in recognition for Allah.
Edward Green
WTF is "two hundred years"? The cargo cults started after WWII.
The simple truth of the matter is apparently that there is some truth
to the idea that anti-western and in particular anti-western Muslim
males (though I don't know if that includes you) are motivated in part
by sexual envy. Otherwise your schoolyard sexual boasting is hard to
understand.
So what is your startling alternative theory? Or is all you have
bragging nonsense?
Maleki
Green) wrote in
<2a0cceff.02100...@posting.google.com> that:
>WTF is "two hundred years"? The cargo cults started after WWII.
Notion of Cargo Cultism is a sample of a mistake that's
general trend in Westerners. The other sample of that
trend is how Western archaeologists have been
interpreting ornaments and food found in old graves for
the past "two hundred" or so years. Same mistake by
same people for same reason.
Jan Bielawski
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > America + god = Mexico or Arabia; a fantastically wealthy ruling
> > class, a small well-to-do middle class, and a vast ulcerous underclass
> > wailing to god as they carve their initials in their surviving
> > children's flesh. Of course, Muslims literally carve their kids'
> > flesh - but only the genitalia. It's God's will.
>
> Jews do also. Einstein was circumsized. It is not known whether any of
> his sons were. In any case, circumcision produces two benefits. 1. Less
> cancer of the glans. 2. Erections maintained for long periods of time.
> Getting rid of the foreskin is like taking out the tonsils. It is not
> required, but it has some benefits.
I am sceptical. Nature simply does not make mistakes of this sort. If
it's been there for such a long time it's probably there for a reason.
Populations in countries which do not practice circumcision (i.e. all
Western countries except the US AFAIK) report no problem with cancer
and/or erections. I don't think anybody has heard of such a thing!
Jan Bielawski
Edward Green
Is that what smegma is? Odd that the word should exist in yiddish.
Maleki
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in
<3D9B0AAB...@attbi.com> that:
>
>Uncle Al wrote:
>
>> America + god = Mexico or Arabia; a fantastically wealthy ruling
>> class, a small well-to-do middle class, and a vast ulcerous underclass
>> wailing to god as they carve their initials in their surviving
>> children's flesh. Of course, Muslims literally carve their kids'
>> flesh - but only the genitalia. It's God's will.
>
>Jews do also.
Ahh, that must be it. Uncle Al didn't want it done at
that tender age but mother ignored him and insisted.
And he was left circumcised and angry at god for ever.
Little Al: My god! No! Nooo! DON'T EOTVOS MY CHIRALITY!
I WANT MY CHIRALITY INTACT!!
Mother : Shut up you little khazer!
Little Al: Dear God don't let them Eotvos my chirality.
God! Gaaaaaaaaaaad!....
Jan Bielawski
> Rural asses.
I think I know what you were trying to say to Uncle Al and it's true
that expertise in physics does not make anybody automatically
all-knowing BUT: why did you immediately started to generalise to all
Westerners? This is pure nonsense, millions of people with zillions of
backgrounds?
Jan Bielawski
Robert Kolker
Jan Bielawski wrote:
>
> I am sceptical. Nature simply does not make mistakes of this sort.
Oh really? Then explain the vermiform appendix which has no known
function, but is a source of infection. That is a mistake.
If the appendix were as accessible as the foreskin, we would all have
our appendix removed.
Bob Kolker
Maleki
Bielawski) wrote in
<db455fa2.02100...@posting.google.com> that:
Yes! If it couldn't be generalized to all Westerners I
wouldn't have a point there at all. And how many times
should I say this here, if it couldn't get generalized
to all Westerners then how come every Western
archaeologist made the exact same mistake for the past
two hundred years? Their explanation for finding
ornaments and food with the dead comes from the same
spot in their psyche as their interpretation of those
Cargo Cult people comes. Regardless of which one you
choose among "millions of people with zillions of
background"!
Shit I'm done with this subject. It's above your heads.
Jan Bielawski
Is there any reason why you keep talking about mistakes but never
explaining them? The suspense is killing me...
Jan Bielawski
Edward Green
How could you know whether it's above our heads or not, since you
still coyly haven't let on what your revisionist theory of the cargo
cult people!? Are you saving it for publication, and afraid somebody
will steal your thunder?
Let me guess: western archaeologists for the past 200 years (though
like so many other fields, "western" xxxxxx was a tautology until
recently) have made the error of assuming that other cultures are/were
inhabited by people fundamentally more stupid than modern man. If
modern man places his dead in a cemetary with an elaborate mausoleum,
it's not because he expect the mausoleum to be useful to the dead, but
as a kind of conspicuous display and outlet for his grief. So when
Egyptians placed objects up to and including complete riverboats in
their royal tombs, nobody really expected the dead to make use of them
... anymore than anybody expected Grant to make use of Grant's tomb
(where, IIRC, only his wife is buried).
So the cargo cultists were not hoping magically to lure the great
cargo beasts back, but either quite unmagically and practically trying
to lure them back .. by showing respect to their culture .. or else
simply putting on dramatic productions for the benefit of their own
people -- look, here is what happened last generation ... you won't
believe this!
Guess what ... I think Mark Twain and other western authors have
already mocked this vein of archaeology, imagining a similar
misinterpretation of modern society by its few durable artifacts ...
or maybe not a misinterpretation. I think one story has the future
archaeologist concluding that the colonnaded Federal Reserve Banks
were a kind of temple, where we worshipped the supreme deity. Wow!
Really ironic, huh!?
Of course, if the grinning rural Iranians who mocked your advice to
observe good dental hygeine ... showing you rows of yellow and brown
rotted teeth ... well, you explicitly compare them to Americans. But
somehow, you can generalize from any intellectual dishonesty or foible
of any individual or sub-group of "westerners" to some phylogenic
deficit, though I don't think you would like us to generalize from
your rural countrymen with bad teeth, who mocked you to your face, to
some deficit in you, would you?
Sardonicus, that you are ... one bitter and bigotted individual. You
are not making much sense these days ... submerged in bitter bigotry.
Jan Bielawski
But you havn't said anything. That's the question here - all you've
said so far was "it's above your heads". Well, anybody can say that.
Jan Bielawski
Bill Taylor
|> I am sceptical. Nature simply does not make mistakes of this sort.
That is a very profound and much-ignored observation! It is largely true.
Though there are obvious exceptions involving "relic" organs such as rear
leg bones in whales, and the like; for the most part if nature does it -
it's almost certainly for a good reason.
Every year thousands of women die in childbirth, because babies' heads are
too big for their vaginas. But nature thinks (undoubtedly correctly though
unfeelingly) that the advantage of big-brained kids surviving is greater
than the disadvantage of a few mothers dying. Every year thousands of
people die choking, because nature has "stupidly" put our epiglottis
further back than our tongues. But again nature thinks it good to
have lots of people who talk and hard cheese to the few who die!
Mother nature is not so much a grand architect, as an inveterate tinkerer.
And anyway - it's pretty damned obvious what one BIG plus of a foreskin is,
it makes sex noticeably more pleasurable - there is much greater sensitivity.
I sometimes think that Abraham and the rest didn't really *want* men to have
all that much fun; just as those hideous practitioners of female circumcision
do not want their women to have ANY!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor W.Ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Abraham looked upon the Lord and said:
"We are your chosen people and you want us to cut off the tips of our WHAT?!!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Green
> j...@nostalghia.com (Jan Bielawski) writes:
>
> |> I am sceptical. Nature simply does not make mistakes of this sort.
>
> That is a very profound and much-ignored observation! It is largely true.
> Though there are obvious exceptions involving "relic" organs such as rear
IIRC, they have some clasping role in copulation.
jmfb...@aol.com
In article <2a0cceff.02100...@posting.google.com>,
null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
<snip>
>The simple truth of the matter is apparently that there is some truth
>to the idea that anti-western and in particular anti-western Muslim
>males (though I don't know if that includes you) are motivated in part
>by sexual envy. Otherwise your schoolyard sexual boasting is hard to
>understand.
Of course they have a sex problem. Look at the Taliban; they had
serious hangups.
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Randy Poe
> On 2 Oct 2002 14:03:29 -0700, j...@nostalghia.com (Jan
> Bielawski) wrote in
> <db455fa2.02100...@posting.google.com> that:
>
>
>>Maleki <male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<rb0lpu077sqmce30h...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>Rural asses.
>>
>>I think I know what you were trying to say to Uncle Al and it's true
>>that expertise in physics does not make anybody automatically
>>all-knowing BUT: why did you immediately started to generalise to all
>>Westerners? This is pure nonsense, millions of people with zillions of
>>backgrounds?
>
> Yes! If it couldn't be generalized to all Westerners I
> wouldn't have a point there at all.
From your mouth to Allah's ear. Snip.
- Randy
Daryl McCullough
>And anyway - it's pretty damned obvious what one BIG plus of a foreskin is,
>it makes sex noticeably more pleasurable - there is much greater sensitivity.
I seriously doubt that many men (circumcized or not) would complain that
sex is not pleasurable enough to bother with.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Ali Khan
Well, you are right in a way; Sexual envy is a subset of general lifestyle envy, and yes, superficially, I think many people in the 3rd world do envy the western way, but that is not because of the superiority of the western ethos, its merely because of the excellent eloquence and subtlety of its propagandists (or should I say Spin-doctors), and its purchased sterile shine and class (make no mistake, culture and sophistication are almost as readily purchased as a big mac). I dont really think the choking of billions is something to brag about. I myself am Pakistani Muslim, but am also British, and in terms of personal wealth and lifestyle, have no right at all to point a finger at anyone, which is why I am not, I am merely making an observation. Since we are all mathematicians here, I am confident that a flame war will not erupt.
Thanks
Ali
Edward Green
> Well, you are right in a way; Sexual envy is a subset of general
> lifestyle envy, and yes, superficially, I think many people in the 3rd
> world do envy the western way, but that is not because of the
> superiority of the western ethos, its merely because of the excellent
> eloquence and subtlety of its propagandists (or should I say
> Spin-doctors), and its purchased sterile shine and class (make no
> mistake, culture and sophistication are almost as readily purchased as a
> big mac). I dont really think the choking of billions is something to
> brag about. I myself am Pakistani Muslim, but am also British, and in
> terms of personal wealth and lifestyle, have no right at all to point a
> finger at anyone, which is why I am not, I am merely making an
> observation. Since we are all mathematicians here, I am confident that a
> flame war will not erupt.
Not quite all ... note cross-posting.
One point ... I do not think western propagandists/marketers (same
thing) necessarily spend much time trying to ...
What the heck am I saying! Check that. Of course they would want to
instill a longing in the third world for western lifestyles ... growth
market.
Hmm... have to agree with your "culture and sophistication" comment
... or again, at least that's a common marketing ploy. One reason I
stopped reading "The New Yorker" magazine: I couldn't stand the adds
... they were all aimed at the affluent, and told them that only
_they_ had the taste and refinement to purchase (mostly autos, cloths,
perfumes, etc.) ... which fortunately they also had the money for.
What a coincidence.
V.Gopal
> vgop...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote in message news:<38af3945.02093...@posting.google.com>...
>
> ...
>
> > A smooth function/activity has to be understood by psychophysical
> > parallelism, intellectual sympathy, introspection and meditation.
> > Everything in nature is smooth. No language is smooth. Nature is meant
> > to enhance our capacity for sympathy, introspection and meditation. We
> > can realize the exictence of God only by understanding 'The smooth'.
>
> Enough said. ;)
Not yet. Let me add one more - Any activity that proceeds on
self-reference (if it is possible to proceed at all) then that
activity is smooth.
puppe...@hotmail.com
> Notion of Cargo Cultism is a sample of a mistake that's
> general trend in Westerners. The other sample of that
> trend is how Western archaeologists have been
> interpreting ornaments and food found in old graves for
> the past "two hundred" or so years. Same mistake by
> same people for same reason.
Anybody who has been making the same mistake for 200 years
would have to be a much older person.
Actually, Maleki, you are a grossly racist pile of smeg.
Socks