Is there a Skeptic in the House?
mah...@gte.net
I am wanting to inquire is there a Skeptic on the Usenet? ;-)
[In whose Voice would that be most funniest?]
'A Pal Him' Split Persona. Spilt Personalit(y).
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Sharp/Smukler
> I am wanting to inquire is there a Skeptic on the Usenet? ;-)
I doubt it.
--
Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
NATHANIEL SILVER
Sharp/Smukler wrote in message ...
Are you trying to be Sharp/Smukler?
NS
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In article <sharsmvk-130...@ppp47.pm3-1.cny.localnet.com>, shar...@localnet.com (Sharp/Smukler) writes:
>In article <6gdf93$bg4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mah...@gte.net wrote:
>
>> I am wanting to inquire is there a Skeptic on the Usenet? ;-)
>
>I doubt it.
>
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Clyde"the"Guide
Earl Curley wrote:
>
> Sharp/Smukler wrote:
> >
> > In article <6gdf93$bg4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mah...@gte.net wrote:
> >
> > > I am wanting to inquire is there a Skeptic on the Usenet? ;-)
> >
> > I doubt it.
> >
> > Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
>
>
> Earl Curley
> earlc...@hotmail.com
> http://www.webdesign.ca/
Go get 'im, Earl baby!
Clyde"the"Guide
Earl Curley
mah...@gte.net
In article <35332A...@hotmail.com>,
earlc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Sharp/Smukler wrote:
> >
> > In article <6gdf93$bg4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mah...@gte.net wrote:
> >
> > > I am wanting to inquire is there a Skeptic on the Usenet? ;-)
> >
> > I doubt it.
> >
> > --
> > Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Just an Earth bound Skeptic I. [Reads like a recent Pink Floyd song]
Remind me again *please :-)* what it is we are skeptical about?
I keep forgetting and suppose that can't be good.
> ROTFL. I guess we have a virgin in the crowd?
One can only hope? That's a topic for another day I imagine.
Jim Hunter
mah...@gte.net wrote:
>
> In article <35332A...@hotmail.com>,
> earlc...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Sharp/Smukler wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <6gdf93$bg4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mah...@gte.net
wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am wanting to inquire is there a Skeptic on the Usenet? ;-)
> > >
> > > I doubt it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
>
> Just an Earth bound Skeptic I. [Reads like a recent Pink Floyd song]
>
> Remind me again *please :-)* what it is we are skeptical about?
Skepticism: The doctrine that all knowledge in uncertain.
Neo-skepticism: One who believes that knowledge increase has
stopped.
---
Jim
Malcom Anderson
Jim Hunter wrote:
> > Remind me again *please :-)* what it is we are skeptical about?
>
> Skepticism: The doctrine that all knowledge in uncertain.
I think I'm a skeptic, but I can't be sure.
James Logajan
Sharp/Smukler (shar...@localnet.com) wrote:
: In article <6gdf93$bg4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mah...@gte.net wrote:
: > I am wanting to inquire is there a Skeptic on the Usenet? ;-)
: I doubt it.
Self-referential contradictions are so cute.
Don't believe any statement you see posted to Usenet.
: Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Jim Hunter
The ultimate philosophy:
S.S.S.
Schizophrenic sketical solipsism.
---
Jim
mah...@gte.net
In article <3536C258.16E8@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu>,
Jim Hunter <jim.hunter@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
> mah...@gte.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <35332A...@hotmail.com>,
> > earlc...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In article <6gdf93$bg4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mah...@gte.net
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am wanting to inquire is there a Skeptic on the Usenet? ;-)
> > > >
Before I read the lyrics, I used to think that song was really "Just an Earth
bound Mystic I." But it isn't. As I found out, a bit disappointedly. No
matter. I just hear to myself that way just the same.
> >
> > Remind me again *please :-)* what it is we are skeptical about?
>
> Skepticism: The doctrine that all knowledge in uncertain.
That sounds pretty comprehensive. So darn all inclusive. Do you think we
should be so completely certain? There ought be a list of things we need not
doubt?
> Neo-skepticism: One who believes that knowledge increase has
> stopped.
When did it stop and according to whom? Do they have a WWW site? Do they know
how to post? :-)
[I'm still and will undoubtedly forever remain the funn(y) nice guy...
remember?]
Somehow I have come to believe *THIS* is my life! Ping.
OK. tHis2crap would be one road less traveled.
sHit. sign Hit?
H=Hamiltonian
i=sqrt(-1)==j to EEE types. No need ask why here and today.
t=time
(+/-)H i t= (+/-) i S
because S == H t. It's a (new?) shorthanded quantity. Action.
e to the Action
e^{Action}==e^{S}
Ooops. I've forgotten the complex i.
e^{i Action}==e^{i S}
I'm just thinking to myself. I guess I ought not do that out loud. Someone
might see you for Heaven's sake. Hide it. Besides, if you hide it then your
incompetencies won't be on display for others to gauge you by. Give out no
CLUES what so ever. Remember that advice given out to you so long ago??? :-)
Mahipal "Somehow I have come to believe *THIS* is my life! Ping." Verde?
Verde would be one spelling of Virdhee or Virdy. It's definitely not the
Verve! "Bitter Sweet Symphony that is Life". What an awesome tune. Awesome!
\/ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/GateWay2DREAMScomeTrue.html
Jim Hunter
We have all the uncertainty we need. We are uncertain
what the words following the definition above mean.
> > Neo-skepticism: One who believes that knowledge increase has
> > stopped.
>
> When did it stop and according to whom? Do they have a WWW site? Do
they know
> how to post? :-)
When did you start believing that philosophic claims are "true"?
N-s: They -believe- ...
> [I'm still and will undoubtedly forever remain the funn(y) nice
guy...
> remember?]
>
> Somehow I have come to believe *THIS* is my life! Ping.
>
> OK. tHis2crap would be one road less traveled.
>
> sHit. sign Hit?
> H=Hamiltonian
> i=sqrt(-1)==j to EEE types. No need ask why here and today.
> t=time
>
> (+/-)H i t= (+/-) i S
>
> because S == H t. It's a (new?) shorthanded quantity. Action.
>
> e to the Action
>
> e^{Action}==e^{S}
>
> Ooops. I've forgotten the complex i.
>
> e^{i Action}==e^{i S}
>
> I'm just thinking to myself. I guess I ought not do that out loud.
Someone
> might see you for Heaven's sake. Hide it. Besides, if you hide it
then your
> incompetencies won't be on display for others to gauge you by. Give
out no
> CLUES what so ever. Remember that advice given out to you so long
ago??? :-)
What does the equation have to do with skepticism?
---
Jim
mah...@gte.net
In article <353AB8F5.3BCA@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu>,[...]
> > > Skepticism: The doctrine that all knowledge in uncertain.
> >
> > That sounds pretty comprehensive. So darn all inclusive. Do you think
> > we should be so completely certain? There ought be a list of things we
> > need not doubt?
>
> We have all the uncertainty we need. We are uncertain
> what the words following the definition above mean.
They seemed meaningful when I read them. They made sense. What gives?
> > > Neo-skepticism: One who believes that knowledge increase has
> > > stopped.
> >
> > When did it stop and according to whom? Do they have a WWW site? Do
> > they know how to post? :-)
>
> When did you start believing that philosophic claims are "true"?
> N-s: They -believe- ...
My mistake. I suspect I read past the 'believes' too fast. 'One who believes'
is a reference to a mythical individual.
[...]
> What does the equation have to do with skepticism?
e^{i Action}==e^{i S} is just an identity really, on the way towards being
applied in an equation somewhere. This -- or any -- particular equation itself
is irrelevant. I thought the sci.math group might be getting a little curious
as to why they are included in this thread? I wouldn't want the curiousity to
... err... like ... ;-) kill them. ... So and _that_ exactly is why they are
included in the header.
> ---
> Jim