The wikipedia selection article

6 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 5:11:59 AM4/21/10
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection

"...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
species may be subject to selection...."
Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
sense.

Burkhard

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 5:32:44 AM4/21/10
to

You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
it.

It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing the chances
that the trait is passed on"

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 5:39:43 AM4/21/10
to

This is a strange place to ask that question.

1. It belongs, that is if you want it answered, on the discussion page
of Wikipedia.
2. Since the history of the page is public, you can find out for
yourself who wrote it and
3. Do you think t.o. is frequented by any mind readers?

It was added on 17:11, 14 August 2003 by a user referred to as User:
168... This however is a "missing" user. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians for details.

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 5:45:25 AM4/21/10
to

Who cares? Perhaps you do as you are a monomaniac who just can't let go.

We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational or just fun.
But not if you start one of your interminable searches looking for what
everybody else found at age 12 years, not if you are going to try again to
convince the rest of the world that words have no meaning and that this is
why Darwininian evolution cannot be right. We cannot agree on the meaning
of "breath" which is why you asphyxiate all interest.

David


bpuharic

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 5:52:44 AM4/21/10
to

the question is irrelevant.

backspace is stuck in a 3rd century mindset where science is magic,
and magic is science.

because of 'god'.

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 6:31:25 AM4/21/10
to

So pattern or design?

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 6:38:03 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 2:45 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > species  may be subject to selection...."
> > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > sense.
>
> Who cares?  Perhaps you do as you are a monomaniac who just can't let go.

The people who just won't let go are the Empedoclians running our
universities and government, they have decreed that asking the
question is of limits. You must debate them , reason them with them
but can't because we don't know the intent with the word: pattern or
design.

> We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational or just fun.
> But not if you start one of your interminable searches looking for what
> everybody else found at age 12 years, not if you are going to try again to
> convince the rest of the world that words have no meaning and that this is
> why Darwininian evolution cannot be right.

What is darwinian evolution?


Burkhard

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 6:45:25 AM4/21/10
to

Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
a sufficiently competent speaker of English.

Nick Keighley

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 6:50:18 AM4/21/10
to

a shorthand for evolutionary biology. Descent with modification plus
natural selection. Stellar evolution, for instance, isn't Darwinian

Eric Root

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 7:02:45 AM4/21/10
to

Backspace, go jump in a lake. I mean it in the "large body of fresh
water" sense.

Eric Root

Ron O

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 7:09:23 AM4/21/10
to

So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
"In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."

Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
some trait or allele over another. "subject" to selection only means
that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for
or against under the conditions that the population exists under.

Ron Okimoto

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 7:21:17 AM4/21/10
to
backspace wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:45 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>>
>>> "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
>>> species may be subject to selection...."
>>> Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
>>> sense.
>>
>> Who cares? Perhaps you do as you are a monomaniac who just can't let
>> go.
>
> The people who just won't let go are the Empedoclians running our
> universities and government, they have decreed that asking the
> question is of limits.

Typical paranoid conspiracy rubbish. It is used by every nutbar to justify
the fact that nobody of any consequence takes them seriously. Grow up.


You must debate them , reason them with them
> but can't because we don't know the intent with the word: pattern or
> design.
>

Here we go into the looking glass. Are you there Alice? Oh
Aaaaaalice.......

>> We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational or
>> just fun. But not if you start one of your interminable searches
>> looking for what everybody else found at age 12 years, not if you
>> are going to try again to convince the rest of the world that words
>> have no meaning and that this is why Darwininian evolution cannot be
>> right.
>
> What is darwinian evolution?

The same thing it was the last twenty times that you asked. Your groove is
wearing deeper, you are never getting out of it and unlike Schwarzenegger's
Conan turning the millstone you won't end up with big shoulders either.

David

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 8:08:23 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 3:50 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Who did the modifying? Are you using modification in the pattern or
design sense.

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 8:11:03 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > species  may be subject to selection...."
> > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > sense.

> So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."

> Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
> some trait or allele over another.

Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense?

>  "subject" to selection only means that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for
> or against under the conditions that the population exists under.

Are you using "subject to selection" in the pattern or design sense?

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 8:18:48 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 4:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > species  may be subject to selection...."
> > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > sense.
>
> So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."

The context Darwin had with "evolution" had nothing to do with genes.
You are using the same symbol but to which concept are you referring
to. In 1865 the context was Dr. Fletcher's rudiments of physiology and
Vestiges by Robert Chambers with spiders forming by themselves on
battery terminals - this is what a reader in 1865 understood under the
rubric of "evolution" .

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 8:25:32 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 3:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > it.

> > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing  the chances
> > > that the trait is passed on"

> > So pattern or design?

> Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> a sufficiently competent speaker of English.

It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
what is the intended meaning as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.

We could have a user that believes the Gaia nature selection force
using its Jedi powers made a decision. Another user used "selection"
in the pattern sense. The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.

I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
pattern as per your premise that matter came before mind.

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 8:32:42 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 3:50 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_with_modification redirects to
evolution, what would be the difference between DWM and Evolution and
who would say so ?

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 8:29:54 AM4/21/10
to

Well Wilkins says there is no such thing as Darwinism. But Darwinism
is just another synonym for Darwinian, like mud is the vernacular for
crystals. Ruse for example thinks we came from crystals, Ben Stein
then used the vernacular "mud". Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
ape and simian. In one context a common ancestor between fish and land
dwelling species is a "common ancestor" ala Dawkins and in another a
common ancestor fishy thingy - fun this game with words don't you
think?

Burkhard

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 8:42:55 AM4/21/10
to
On 21 Apr, 13:25, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 3:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > > it.
> > > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing  the chances
> > > > that the trait is passed on"
> > > So pattern or design?
> > Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> > how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> > a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
>
> It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
> what is the intended meaning as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.

> By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
yes

> but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.

no. What is important is what the reader understands, not what the
writer had in his mind


> We could have a user that believes the Gaia nature selection force
> using its Jedi powers made a decision. Another user used "selection"
> in the pattern sense.

As long as the descriptive account is the same,nobody cares.

> The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
> anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.
>

No, but we have as communiy of speakers, and the symbo means whatever
a competent speaker would interpret it.

> I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
> pattern

I, in line with about everyone else here, have no idea whatsoever what
you mean with pattern and design. I do know though that there are
design patterns. Everybody who knits uses them.

> as per your premise that matter came before mind.

Don't know where I made this claim, or how it relates to patterns or
design.

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 8:50:01 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 5:42 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 21 Apr, 13:25, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 3:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > > > it.
> > > > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing the chances
> > > > > that the trait is passed on"
> > > > So pattern or design?
> > > Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> > > how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> > > a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
>
> > It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
> > what is the intended meaning as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
> > By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
>
> yes
>
> > but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.
>
> no.  What is important is what  the reader understands, not what the
> writer had in his mind

You can't be serious.


> > The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
> > anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.

> No, but we have as communiy of speakers, and the symbo means whatever
> a competent speaker would interpret it.

Words have no meaning.

> > I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
> > pattern

> I, in line with about everyone else here, have no idea whatsoever what
> you mean with pattern and design. I do know though that there are
> design patterns. Everybody who knits uses them.

I am knitting a "design pattern", would represent design even though
it has the word "pattern". Same story with "random":
What does Random mean?

Lets take the common *semantic* understanding with the word "Random".
Semantically its dictionary definition is without purpose. But since
"random" has no meaning it could actually convey purpose depending on
the intent. Under the rubric of "random" we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample and many more
concepts.

Place five bags of marbles each labeled q,u,a,r,k respectively, with
each bag containing all the letters of the alphabet. Now do a
"selection at random" or "probability selection" as per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample by placing your hand
inside and selecting each marble until the target letter is met. The
phrase "selection at random" now conveys design even though it has the
word "random" in it. This demonstrates that no symbol either
"selection", "pattern", "design" or "random" has any meaning, only
ideas have meaning. And your idea needs to be decoded as you use the
symbols "pattern" and "design" in their relevant contexts given your
premise: Mind before matter or matter before mind. Either premise will
forever be one of faith. http://raherrmann.com/ calls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness a strong delusion. Pure
randomness doesn't exist in mathematics, it is a metaphysical
position.

> > as per your premise that matter came before mind.

>  Don't know where I made this claim, or how it relates to patterns or
> design.

Depends what you mean with pattern and design.

R Brown

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 9:09:51 AM4/21/10
to

"backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80bf78a2-f689-4ec4...@b6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
This logical fallacy is called "begging the question". Backspace knows where
he wants to go with this. So does anyone else in here with half a brain.

Here's a bone for backspace: (gotta feed the creationists if you want to
keep them playing)

Q: Who did the modifying?
A: It was God. Godidit. God is the intelligent designer and originator of
genetic modifications according to his desires. We cannot presume to
understand his desires because we are unworthy scum and need to submit and
not be so arrogant so guys like you can feel good so we'll all get a ticket
to heaven but you'll get a better placement 'cuz you're bringing the
message.

Q: Are you using modification in the pattern or design sense?
A: I'm going to go with "modification in the design sense" for $200 Alex.
Patterns can happen due to the physical condition of material objects. For
example, water molecules can form patterns in snowflakes. The modifications
that God wrought are in the design, not the pattern. We need to make the
athiest understand that there is clear intentionality of the designer being
displayed here, not just patterns.

Made your day, (and saved a lot of wasted bandwidth while you fence with us)
didn't I?

Burkhard

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 9:33:28 AM4/21/10
to
On 21 Apr, 13:50, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:42 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 21 Apr, 13:25, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 3:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > > > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing the chances
> > > > > > that the trait is passed on"
> > > > > So pattern or design?
> > > > Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> > > > how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> > > > a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
>
> > > It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
> > > what is the intended meaning as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
> > > By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
>
> > yes
>
> > > but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.
>
> > no.  What is important is what  the reader understands, not what the
> > writer had in his mind
>
> You can't be serious.
>
Absolutely. Meanings are social conventions. See e.g.Semantics,
pragmatics and the theory of meaning by Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin
Stokho, Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 2, Issue 1, March 1978, Pages 49-70


> > > The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
> > > anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.
> > No, but we have as communiy of speakers, and the symbo means whatever
> > a competent speaker would interpret it.
>
> Words have no meaning.
>

Words have the meaning the community of speakers assigsn to them

> > > I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
> > > pattern
> > I, in line with about everyone else here, have no idea whatsoever what
> > you mean with pattern and design. I do know though that there are
> > design patterns. Everybody who knits uses them.
>
> I am knitting a "design pattern", would represent design even though
> it has the word "pattern".

and it would represent patterns, as the word says. This is a pattern:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3069/2715012831_00291f5100.jpg

>Same story with "random":
> What does Random mean?
>
> Lets take the common *semantic* understanding with the word "Random".
> Semantically its dictionary definition is without purpose. But since
> "random" has no meaning it could actually convey purpose depending on

> the intent. Under the rubric of "random" we havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampleand many more


> concepts.
>
> Place five bags of marbles each labeled q,u,a,r,k respectively, with
> each bag containing all the letters of the alphabet. Now do a

> "selection at random" or "probability selection" as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampleby placing your hand


> inside and selecting each marble until the target letter is met. The
> phrase "selection at random" now conveys design even though it has the
> word "random" in it. This demonstrates that no symbol either
> "selection", "pattern", "design" or "random" has any meaning,

No it doesn't. It is still and remains a random selection.

>only
> ideas have meaning. And your idea needs to be decoded as you use the
> symbols "pattern" and "design" in their relevant contexts given your
> premise: Mind before matter or matter before mind. Either premise will

> forever be one of faith.http://raherrmann.com/callshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomnessa strong delusion. Pure


> randomness doesn't exist in mathematics, it is a metaphysical
> position.
>

And you still haven;t shown how that alleged premise has anything to
do with patterns or design

> > > as per your premise that matter came before mind.
> >  Don't know where I made this claim, or how it relates to patterns or
> > design.
>
> Depends what you mean with pattern and design.

Since you brought up these terms, you should explain what you mean
with them, and how you think they relate to mind vs matter, don't you
think

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 9:59:07 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 6:09 am, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "backspace" <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Darwin used it in the pattern sense. He also used "ns acts" in the
pattern sense.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 10:02:35 AM4/21/10
to

This would have been very good, and humane, advice if he had set
himself on fire, as I have asked him to do repeatedly.

--
Will in New Haven


Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 10:05:44 AM4/21/10
to

And your mother accepted material support from your father. And they
had sex. So the vernacular says that your mom is a whore.

Kermit

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 10:38:13 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 5:25 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 3:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > > it.
> > > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing  the chances
> > > > that the trait is passed on"
> > > So pattern or design?
> > Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> > how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> > a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
>
> It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
> what is the intended meaning as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.

> By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
> but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.

No, it's not. Why on Earth would you think so?

The article is explaining an idea; it is not trying to manipulate
anybody. There are no ulterior motives that would change its meaning.

>
> We could have a user that believes the Gaia nature selection force
> using its Jedi powers made a decision.

That would not be the mainstream science point of view, and the
Wikipedia staff would correct it.

> Another user used "selection"
> in the pattern sense. The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
> anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.
>

Did the user say so, or did you just apply your Procrustean standard?

> I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
> pattern as per your premise that matter came before mind.

Yes. There are many patterns (most of them) which are not intended.

There is no evidence that mind came before, or *can come before,
matter. There are many scientists who believe it did, but they will
tell you that this is not a scientific claim.

Who are you, and what have you done with backspace? You seem to be
making sense.

Kermit

LT

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 10:43:51 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 6:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> species  may be subject to selection...."
> Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> sense.

The sentence is self-explanatory. It is prefaced with "In the context
of evolution". So, obviously, selection refers to natural selection,
and neither pattern nor design. What a silly question.

LT

Kermit

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 10:51:13 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 5:50 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:42 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 21 Apr, 13:25, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 3:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > > > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing the chances
> > > > > > that the trait is passed on"
> > > > > So pattern or design?
> > > > Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> > > > how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> > > > a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
>
> > > It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
> > > what is the intended meaning as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
> > > By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
>
> > yes
>
> > > but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.
>
> > no.  What is important is what  the reader understands, not what the
> > writer had in his mind
>
> You can't be serious.

I share you concern, but in science and encyclopedia articles,
pragmatics is almost always a silly distraction. In fact, I would
suggest that you drop it altogether; your obsession with it makes it
impossible for you to read simple statements.

>
> > > The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
> > > anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.
> > No, but we have as communiy of speakers, and the symbo means whatever
> > a competent speaker would interpret it.
>
> Words have no meaning.

Ah, here's the backspace I know.

>
> > > I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
> > > pattern
> > I, in line with about everyone else here, have no idea whatsoever what
> > you mean with pattern and design. I do know though that there are
> > design patterns. Everybody who knits uses them.
>
> I am knitting a "design pattern", would represent design even though
> it has the word "pattern". Same story with "random":
> What does Random mean?

Quite a few things, related to a common thread, and usually involving
"unintended" or "unpredictable".

Because of its cluster of related meanings, in evolutionary biology we
frequently say "[mutations are] random with regard to the organism's
needs". We usually don't deem it necessary to say this more than once
per conversation or chapter.

>
> Lets take the common *semantic* understanding with the word "Random".
> Semantically its dictionary definition is without purpose. But since
> "random" has no meaning it could actually convey purpose depending on

> the intent. Under the rubric of "random" we havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampleand many more


> concepts.
>
> Place five bags of marbles each labeled q,u,a,r,k respectively, with
> each bag containing all the letters of the alphabet. Now do a

> "selection at random" or "probability selection" as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampleby placing your hand


> inside and selecting each marble until the target letter is met. The
> phrase "selection at random" now conveys design even though it has the
> word "random" in it. This demonstrates that no symbol either
> "selection", "pattern", "design" or "random" has any meaning, only
> ideas have meaning. And your idea needs to be decoded as you use the
> symbols "pattern" and "design" in their relevant contexts given your
> premise: Mind before matter or matter before mind. Either premise will

> forever be one of faith.http://raherrmann.com/callshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomnessa strong delusion. Pure


> randomness doesn't exist in mathematics, it is a metaphysical
> position.

You work awfully hard to not understand simple statements.

It's not faith to claim that mutations are random with regard to the
needs of the organism. For instance, whether the climate is turning
warmer or colder, a newborn rabbit is as likely to be born with a
heavier fur coat than its parents. If the weather is generally colder,
it will be advantageous, if the weather is generally warmer, it will
be disadvantageous.

This is demonstrably true; these are verifiable facts. You cannot
disprove evolution by misunderstanding it. More articulate people than
you have tried and failed.

>
> > > as per your premise that matter came before mind.
> >  Don't know where I made this claim, or how it relates to patterns or
> > design.
>
> Depends what you mean with pattern and design.

What difference does it make? Even if the universe were a dream of
Brahma, evolutionary science would be just as legitimate. If you don't
like it, ignore it, or address the evidence. You can't pretend to
claim that nobody means what they plainly say (and what everybody else
agrees they mean) and accomplish anything other than appearing sadly
obsessive and confused.

Kermit


Kermit

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 10:59:14 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 3:38 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:45 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > species  may be subject to selection...."
> > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > sense.
>
> > Who cares?  Perhaps you do as you are a monomaniac who just can't let go.
>
> The people who just won't let go are the Empedoclians running our
> universities and government,

Most of them neither know nor care who Empedocles was.

> they have decreed that asking the
> question is of limits. You must debate them ,

Why the hell should we debate them if they are not asking a question
you are obsessed with, and which we have no trouble with?

> reason them with them
> but can't because we don't know the intent with the word: pattern or
> design.

Sure we do. The dictionary describes how sane English speakers use
those words. I any event, evolutionary science still stands. It works
in Mandarin as well as German. Are you prepared to obsess with primary
school grammar in all spoken languages? Because evolutionary science
is clear and valid in all of them.

>
> > We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational or just fun.
> > But not if you start one of your interminable searches looking for what
> > everybody else found at age 12 years, not if you are going to try again to
> > convince the rest of the world that words have no meaning and that this is
> > why Darwininian evolution cannot be right.
>
> What is darwinian evolution?

Check Wikipedia.
Or buy a book.
Or ask someone you haven't asked a hundred times already.
Or - and this is a radical idea - take some classes. For you, however,
I offer unusual advice: don't ask questions, just listen.

Kermit

Kermit

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 11:13:53 AM4/21/10
to

He is correct. It's doubtful there ever was.

> But Darwinism is just another synonym for Darwinian,

No, it's not.

The former is a non-existent noun, the latter is an adjective
referring to a process which was originally described by Darwin, but
the understanding of which has since grown.

> like mud is the vernacular for crystals.

Ah. And money is the vernacular for cinnamon buns, and wheelbarrow is
the vernacular for dentist.

> Ruse for example thinks we came from crystals,

OK. So? Abiogenesis is not yet settled; not all researchers in the
field agree with him, but where does he say that crystals are the same
as mud?

> Ben Stein then used the vernacular "mud".

Ben Stein is an ass, an idiot, a propagandist, and poorly educated, so
I see his attraction for you as an authority. How does his disparaging
use of the word mud in his strawman misrepresentation of science
establish its vernacular usage for crystals?

If you say Empedocles was Greek, and I said he was Roman, would that
establish that "Roman" is the vernacular for "Greek"?

Or, you say Jesus was God, as an atheist I say he was human.
Therefore, the vernacular for "human" is "God".

> Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
> ape and simian.

By illiterates, or those playing with language, it can be.

What does this have to do with science or reality?

> In one context a common ancestor between fish and land
> dwelling species is a "common ancestor" ala Dawkins and in another a
> common ancestor fishy thingy - fun this game with words don't you
> think?

No. You don't play it well; you are ponderous, obsessive, and
dishonestly seeking a conclusion that you can support with neither
argumentation nor evidence.

Kermit

Kermit

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 11:17:54 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 5:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > species  may be subject to selection...."
> > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > sense.
> > So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
> > Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
> > some trait or allele over another.
>
> Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense?

No.

>
> >  "subject" to selection only means  that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for
> > or against under the conditions that the population exists under.
>
> Are you using "subject to selection" in the pattern or design sense?

No.

But the results affect the design (in the metaphorical sense, not the
literal sense), which is also a pattern, and also the phenotypic
expression of the genomes of the offspring interacting with the
environment during development.

Kermit

Kermit

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 11:20:44 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 5:18 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > species  may be subject to selection...."
> > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > sense.
>
> > So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
>
> The context Darwin had with "evolution" had nothing to do with genes.

Of course it did; he just didn't know it.

> You are using the same symbol but to which concept are you referring
> to.

Genes. Look it up.

> In 1865 the context was Dr. Fletcher's rudiments of physiology and
> Vestiges by Robert Chambers with spiders forming by themselves on
> battery terminals - this is what a reader in 1865 understood under the
> rubric of  "evolution" .

Not if they had read "On the Origin of Species", nor if they had never
heard of Fletcher or Chambers, nor if they had other reasons to use it
differently.

Kermit


backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 11:44:45 AM4/21/10
to

Meaning is pragmatics , a meaning is a social convention, its symbolic
representation itself has no meaning. Quark doesn't mean anything.

odin

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 11:58:16 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 3:50 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

True. Stellar evolution isn't really Darwinian in that stars do not
replicate or get naturally selected. Just like embryological
development is not Darwinian. However, on a larger "time" scale (we do
not have a word that works so we use "time" outside of cosmological
time here), the universe of all universes may be a Darwinian process,
as Smolin points out. Also, on a different take on reality, all
physical process may actually be Darwinian at the fundamental string
level. In that case, stellar life cycle and embryological development
and climate may indeed be intrinsically Darwinian processes as well.
But that is not well understood by any stretch of the imagination, and
is probably not a practical way of seeing those processes. But it does
mean that perhaps nothing at all in reality makes sense except in the
light of evolution, to take Dobzhansky up one notch. BTW, human
thought may be a Darwinian process, and therefore design is a natural
process, unintentional, and perhaps intelligence is an illusion. So
ideas beget ideas with modification, and the frontal lobe simulator
puts it through its selective paces.

-Loki

Christopher Denney

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 11:58:23 AM4/21/10
to

Did you look up the word monomaniac?
Do you understand the meaning we have in mind when we say you are one?

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 11:56:01 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 7:02 am, Will in New Haven

You don't seem to like me very much.

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 11:54:43 AM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 8:13 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
> > ape and simian.

> By illiterates, or those playing with language, it can be.

> What does this have to do with science or reality?

Ask John Harshman and John Wilkins , they insist that our ancestor was
a flea scratching baboon hanging by its tail in the trees.

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 12:03:41 PM4/21/10
to

You can't really interact with your environment in the same sense
that you are not adapted to your environment in the sense that Linux
isn't adapted to its environment or condition of existence. My
premise is that mind came before matter, that my body and grey matter
is a symbolic representation of my soul - the real me, which can't
die. My soul is like a complex Linux idea neither here nor there and
just like "Linux is adapted to its environment" makes no sense so is
saying that you are adapted to your environment meaningless. Saying
your interact with your environment is somewhere between a truism and
meaningless....... because you can't do anything but interact with
your condition of existence, which is described by your attributes.
---------------------
Note that the above seems a bit confusing I would be happy to amend it
but it seems a failure of language to find the correct words. See this
post for clarity
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Wikipedia.27s_Fitness_article_uses_John_Tyndall.27s_interpetation_of_Democritus

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 12:15:44 PM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 7:43 am, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 6:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > species  may be subject to selection...."
> > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > sense.

> The sentence is self-explanatory. It is prefaced with "In the context
> of evolution".

But the context with the symbol evolution(which has no meaning) was
Vestiges by Robert Chambers and Dr. Fletcher's Rudiments of physiology
with his embrios argument(flawed) in the time era of 1865. Back then
those authors were interpreted to understand OoS by a reader: Which
author are you interpreting? Because PZ Merkel German chancellor at
scienceblogs.com has stated that he isn't talking about Darwin when
using the symbol evolution.

Heir griphen Furer PZ wrote:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/berlinski_i_cant_believe_im_wasting_time_on_this_guy
"...One we should get out of way immediately is this "Darwin's theory"
nonsense. We are not dealing with "Darwin's theory" anymore, but a
much greater body of knowledge and concepts that has accumulated in
the past century and a half, which includes one huge revision (the
incorporation of genetics and population genetics) in the past, and
which is being constantly updated right now. It is absolutely idiotic
to criticize the modern study of life on the basis of one's
misunderstanding of a preliminary proposal published in 1859. But this
is the strategy that the IDiots have taken. It is insane...."


> So, obviously, selection refers to natural selection, and neither pattern nor design. What a silly question.

Everything anything we observe or say or do is either a pattern or
design. Either the universe made itself or it was made. Pattern or
design are your only options, there isn't a third.

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 12:27:43 PM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 8:58�am, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> True. Stellar evolution isn't really Darwinian in that stars do not
> replicate or get naturally selected. Just like embryological
> development is not Darwinian. However, on a larger "time" scale (we do
> not have a word that works so we use "time" outside of cosmological
> time here), the universe of all universes may be a Darwinian process,
> as Smolin points out. Also, on a different take on reality, all
> physical process may actually be Darwinian at the fundamental string
> level.

Darwin couldn't do string theory: How did he solve a problem he
couldn't define.

> BTW, human
> thought may be a Darwinian process,

Who defined what a darwinian process is.

> and therefore design is a natural
> process, unintentional, and perhaps intelligence is an illusion.

The sentence was made by your intelligence which means the sentence
itself is an illusion and thus what you wrote is an illusion, which
means we shouldn't believe what you say.

During the 19th Tremaux (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/
00003806/01/Tremaux-on-species.pdf) differed with the belief held then
that the mind is an illusion. If a person says: "My mind is an
illusion created by the brain" then that very sentence itself is an
illusion because it was formulated by his mind. In addition why should
one believe a word he says if he thinks everything he says is the
result of illusions in his head?

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 12:59:27 PM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 11:56�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 7:02�am, Will in New Haven
> You don't seem to like me very much.-

How can you tell? All you have to go by are words. And words have no
meaning.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 1:01:49 PM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 11:54�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 8:13�am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
> > > ape and simian.
> > By illiterates, or those playing with language, it can be.
> > What does this have to do with science or reality?
>
> Ask John Harshman and John Wilkins , they insist that our ancestor was
> a flea scratching baboon hanging by its tail in the trees.

Didn't you used to spell it "flee-scratching," or was that some other
fucking moron?

Baboons are not on our direct line of ancestry. And neither Harshman
nor Wilkins say they are. Baboons spend less time in trees than not.

Get one thing right in a row. And _then_ light yourself on fire.

--
Will in New Haven


>
>

Baron Bodissey

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 1:24:05 PM4/21/10
to

I'm curious: How do you function on a day to day basis? This is a
serious question.

Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
– Amazon Women on the Moon

Burkhard

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 1:38:43 PM4/21/10
to

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 3:22:14 PM4/21/10
to

Well lets see now if nobody had any interest in what I had to say
then ..... sure what am I going on about the whole time over this
natural selection business.

Go Google and type in "Aristotle tautology" and note the pages that
come up 1 to 5 out 78000.

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 3:25:39 PM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 10:01 am, Will in New Haven

<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:54 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 8:13 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
> > > > ape and simian.
> > > By illiterates, or those playing with language, it can be.
> > > What does this have to do with science or reality?
>
> > Ask John Harshman and John Wilkins , they insist that our ancestor was
> > a flea scratching baboon hanging by its tail in the trees.
>
> Didn't you used to spell it "flee-scratching," or was that some other

> Baboons are not on our direct line of ancestry. And neither Harshman


> nor Wilkins say they are. Baboons spend less time in trees than not.

JH and Wilkins state that monkey, baboon are the vernacular for
simian, bonobo or any other primate symbol you would wish to use. IF
you use simian or ape or "ape like ancestor" instead of monkey you
have replaced one vernacular for another.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 3:46:55 PM4/21/10
to

Monkey is a general term. Baboons are a few species of monkeys that
are not on the direct line to the apes and thus not on that branch of
the human family tree, if you will excuse the expression. You have
probably misunderstood the two gentlemen in question, which isn't your
fault. You aren't really bright enough to discuss these matters with
them. With them or with my Labrador retriever.

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 6:36:32 PM4/21/10
to
My psychosis is doing fine how is yours?

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 6:56:00 PM4/21/10
to
backspace wrote:
> On Apr 21, 7:02 am, Will in New Haven

Did you ever have a collection of music on black vinyl records? When a spot
of dirt got in the groove in the right way the needle would backtrack so
that the same circuit would be repeated indefinitely. Did you like that
music very much or could you listen to it by the hour?

To fix it you would give the cabinet a sharp smack.

You have been in need of such for years. I mean strictly mentally. If you
cannot get out of this groove in time all you will get is smacks.

David


bpuharic

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 7:18:31 PM4/21/10
to
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:38:03 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 21, 2:45 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

>> backspace wrote:
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>>
>> > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
>> > species  may be subject to selection...."
>> > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
>> > sense.
>>

>> Who cares?  Perhaps you do as you are a monomaniac who just can't let go.
>
>The people who just won't let go are the Empedoclians running our
>universities and government, they have decreed that asking the
>question is of limits. You must debate them , reason them with them
>but can't because we don't know the intent with the word: pattern or
>design.

well, no. no one cares who wrote that. what they DO care about is that
taliban chrisitans...like yourself...think science is to be tossed out
in favor of a 4th century view of nature

bpuharic

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 7:23:21 PM4/21/10
to
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>You can't really interact with your environment in the same sense
>that you are not adapted to your environment in the sense that Linux
>isn't adapted to its environment or condition of existence. My
>premise is that mind came before matte

for a guy who's anal retentive on language, you seem to require of
everyone else what you ignore yourself: exactitude

what the hell is 'mind'?

r, that my body and grey matter
>is a symbolic representation of my soul

what the hell is 'soul'? who first defined it? what are its
pragmatics?

>---------------------
>Note that the above seems a bit confusing I would be happy to amend it
>but it seems a failure of language to find the correct words

'soul' has no meaning at all. it represents something that does not
exist

and we have NEVER seen 'minds' apart from brains. ever. not once
..

bpuharic

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 7:19:56 PM4/21/10
to
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:54:43 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 21, 8:13 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
>> > ape and simian.
>
>> By illiterates, or those playing with language, it can be.
>
>> What does this have to do with science or reality?
>
>Ask John Harshman and John Wilkins , they insist that our ancestor was
>a flea scratching baboon hanging by its tail in the trees.
>

they were.

bpuharic

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 7:19:27 PM4/21/10
to
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:27:43 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 21, 8:58 am, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> True. Stellar evolution isn't really Darwinian in that stars do not
>> replicate or get naturally selected. Just like embryological
>> development is not Darwinian. However, on a larger "time" scale (we do
>> not have a word that works so we use "time" outside of cosmological
>> time here), the universe of all universes may be a Darwinian process,
>> as Smolin points out. Also, on a different take on reality, all
>> physical process may actually be Darwinian at the fundamental string
>> level.
>
>Darwin couldn't do string theory: How did he solve a problem he
>couldn't define.
>
>> BTW, human
>> thought may be a Darwinian process,
>Who defined what a darwinian process is.

who's buried in grant's tomb?

Ron O

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 8:41:09 PM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 7:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > species  may be subject to selection...."
> > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > sense.
> > So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
> > Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
> > some trait or allele over another.
>
> Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense?

Whatever does better in a certain environment gets selected for. If
it isn't as good as most of what is around it gets selected against.
I don't know what kind of pattern or design sense you are talking
about.

>
> >  "subject" to selection only means  that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for
> > or against under the conditions that the population exists under.
>

> Are you using "subject to selection" in the pattern or design sense?

Probably neither.

Ron Okimoto


Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 9:12:41 PM4/21/10
to
On Apr 21, 7:23 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You can't really interact with your environment in the same sense
> >that  you are not adapted to your environment in the sense that Linux
> >isn't adapted to its environment or condition of existence.  My
> >premise is that mind came before matte
>
> for a guy who's anal retentive on language, you seem to require of
> everyone else what you ignore yourself: exactitude
>
> what the hell is 'mind'?
>
> r, that my body and grey matter
>
> >is a symbolic representation of my soul
>
> what the hell is 'soul'? who first defined it? what are its
> pragmatics?  
>
> >---------------------
> >Note that the above seems a bit confusing I would be happy to amend it
> >but it seems a failure of language to find the correct words
>
> 'soul' has  no meaning at all. it represents something that does not
> exist

"Soul" is a quality of music or, in a more banal sense, a _category_
of music. The meaning can be extended to a quality of an actor's
performance or even further. In it's core meaning, Soul is not about a
category but a quality. Hank Sr. had soul.

--
Will in New Haven


>

John Wilkins

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 9:27:13 PM4/21/10
to
In article <j02vs5p1f4m1uhljo...@4ax.com>, bpuharic
<wf...@comcast.net> wrote:

No. Baboons have non-prehensile tails that could never have supported
their weight in trees. They undoubtedly had a tree dwelling ancestor,
since all primates, including us, do, but whether any actual baboon or
ancestor had a prehensile tail is something I rather doubt, as the
primates with prehensile tails are all New World monkeys, and baboons
are Old World.

bpuharic

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 10:03:13 PM4/21/10
to
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:27:13 +1000, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
wrote:

'tis true. but he was making a point, i suppose...creationist attempt
at humor...or something like that.

besides, i keep hoping prehensile tails make a comeback...

bpuharic

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 10:04:36 PM4/21/10
to
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:12:41 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>On Apr 21, 7:23 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>>
>>

>> 'soul' has  no meaning at all. it represents something that does not
>> exist
>
>"Soul" is a quality of music or, in a more banal sense, a _category_
>of music.

if you're as plump as i am (though i'm dieting and have lost 40 lbs),
you also think of soul in terms of food...

of course, when you're dieting you ALWAYS think of food...

Moist Lipwig

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 10:11:30 PM4/21/10
to
"David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hqnuln$3pr$1...@news.albasani.net...

second

John Wilkins

unread,
Apr 21, 2010, 11:02:21 PM4/21/10