Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Chez Watt Ballot, July 1, 2013
152 views
Skip to first unread message
Harvest Dancer
Jul 1, 2013, 6:29:31 PM7/1/13
to
After last month, I'm glad to see people getting back into the spirit of things.
Vote Early, Vote Often, may the Best Watt Win
Jason Harvestdancer
======
"We go upon the practical mode of teaching, Nickleby":
> For the former, it suffices to remember that an infinite-dimensioned,
> binary, random sequence X_i of zeros and ones will eventually have
> infinite subsequences of all 0 and/or all 1. If it doesn't, you know
> it's not random. If it does, how could you convince yourself that it
> is random except by waiting an infinity for it *not* to change?
======
In the "So What Do Vegetables Worship?" category.
> You can make your life even easier if you define God as "a medium
> sized carrot".
======
> In the "So What Do Vegetables Worship?" category:
>
> > You can make your life even easier if you define God as "a medium
> > sized carrot".
It's a really fruitful month for Chez Watt.
[Nominates this post as well. Yes, /this/ one.]
======
>How cool is that!
>> He has found evidence,
>> both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the
>> expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat
>> produced by accelerated decay.
Very cool, but not Godly. God could have said, let the heat
vanish and it did.
======
Chez Watt nomination; just add water:
> It's clear you're dealing with somebody who is a several eggs
> short of a dozen, and as we know a baker's dozen is 13 eggs,
> so clearly the ideas being presented are half-baked which is
> a rather basic flaw and basic is the opposite of acidic which
> is synonymous with acerbic. Less you think I'm playing games,
> acerbic means both 1 sharp and forthright and 2 sour tasting.
> We absolutely know that sour tastes come from acid so this
> is confirmed, and thus through the laws of opposites which
> we traversed from basic to acidic, the argument your dealing
> with is not sharp and is thus dull and not forthright.
======
In the Nameless (No One) Memorial Award Category
> No one denies the scientific premises of natural selection.
> What's rejected > is the explanation of these facts to act as
> a mechanism causing evolutionary change. And the explanation
> itself is observed to be incomprehensible. Your inability to
> understand natural selection as nonsense, contradiction, illogical,
> counterintuitive, tautologous and therefore meaningless and
> pointless, is the real issue here. No such phenomenon exists
> in the wild.
======
In the category "Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Pinky":
>I agree with you, but what does any of this have to do
>with directed panspermia?
======
This doesn't require a Chez Watt nomination; what's required is a Chez
Watt nomination.
> And that which was never true to begin with (evolution) doesn't
> require refutation. What's required is explanation as to why a false
> concept and theory is accepted...
======
Chez Watt nomination, wishful nihilism category:
> Objective prediction, as in when and how much, is useless.
======
In the category: "Shade of Dan Brown's _Inferno_"
> Why not just admit you don't give a damn
> what the world will be like with 8 or 9 billion people?
======
In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
you meant, but ..."
>> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
>> philosophy course and pass it,
>Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
>philosophy course?
======
in the "A difference that makes no difference is no difference
department"
> That is precisely the problem with your argument - Catholic teaching doesn't
> claim that Original Sin has any impact whatsoever on the non-supernatural
> world.
======
Vote Early, Vote Often, may the Best Watt Win
Jason Harvestdancer
======
"We go upon the practical mode of teaching, Nickleby":
> For the former, it suffices to remember that an infinite-dimensioned,
> binary, random sequence X_i of zeros and ones will eventually have
> infinite subsequences of all 0 and/or all 1. If it doesn't, you know
> it's not random. If it does, how could you convince yourself that it
> is random except by waiting an infinity for it *not* to change?
======
In the "So What Do Vegetables Worship?" category.
> You can make your life even easier if you define God as "a medium
> sized carrot".
======
> In the "So What Do Vegetables Worship?" category:
>
> > You can make your life even easier if you define God as "a medium
> > sized carrot".
It's a really fruitful month for Chez Watt.
[Nominates this post as well. Yes, /this/ one.]
======
>How cool is that!
>> He has found evidence,
>> both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the
>> expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat
>> produced by accelerated decay.
Very cool, but not Godly. God could have said, let the heat
vanish and it did.
======
Chez Watt nomination; just add water:
> It's clear you're dealing with somebody who is a several eggs
> short of a dozen, and as we know a baker's dozen is 13 eggs,
> so clearly the ideas being presented are half-baked which is
> a rather basic flaw and basic is the opposite of acidic which
> is synonymous with acerbic. Less you think I'm playing games,
> acerbic means both 1 sharp and forthright and 2 sour tasting.
> We absolutely know that sour tastes come from acid so this
> is confirmed, and thus through the laws of opposites which
> we traversed from basic to acidic, the argument your dealing
> with is not sharp and is thus dull and not forthright.
======
In the Nameless (No One) Memorial Award Category
> No one denies the scientific premises of natural selection.
> What's rejected > is the explanation of these facts to act as
> a mechanism causing evolutionary change. And the explanation
> itself is observed to be incomprehensible. Your inability to
> understand natural selection as nonsense, contradiction, illogical,
> counterintuitive, tautologous and therefore meaningless and
> pointless, is the real issue here. No such phenomenon exists
> in the wild.
======
In the category "Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Pinky":
>I agree with you, but what does any of this have to do
>with directed panspermia?
======
This doesn't require a Chez Watt nomination; what's required is a Chez
Watt nomination.
> And that which was never true to begin with (evolution) doesn't
> require refutation. What's required is explanation as to why a false
> concept and theory is accepted...
======
Chez Watt nomination, wishful nihilism category:
> Objective prediction, as in when and how much, is useless.
======
In the category: "Shade of Dan Brown's _Inferno_"
> Why not just admit you don't give a damn
> what the world will be like with 8 or 9 billion people?
======
In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
you meant, but ..."
>> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
>> philosophy course and pass it,
>Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
>philosophy course?
======
in the "A difference that makes no difference is no difference
department"
> That is precisely the problem with your argument - Catholic teaching doesn't
> claim that Original Sin has any impact whatsoever on the non-supernatural
> world.
======
Free Lunch
Jul 1, 2013, 7:30:40 PM7/1/13
to
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:29:31 -0700 (PDT), Harvest Dancer
<harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>After last month, I'm glad to see people getting back into the spirit of things.
>
>Vote Early, Vote Often, may the Best Watt Win
>
>Jason Harvestdancer
>======
>
>In the category "Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Pinky":
>
>>I agree with you, but what does any of this have to do
>>with directed panspermia?
Runner-up because I nominated it.
>======
>
>This doesn't require a Chez Watt nomination; what's required is a Chez
>Watt nomination.
>
>> And that which was never true to begin with (evolution) doesn't
>> require refutation. What's required is explanation as to why a false
>> concept and theory is accepted...
Third, if I could follow the logic.
>======
>
>In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
>you meant, but ..."
>
>>> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
>>> philosophy course and pass it,
>
>>Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
>>philosophy course?
Honorable mention because that would be one of the questions on the
test.
<harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>After last month, I'm glad to see people getting back into the spirit of things.
>
>Vote Early, Vote Often, may the Best Watt Win
>
>Jason Harvestdancer
>In the Nameless (No One) Memorial Award Category
>
>> No one denies the scientific premises of natural selection.
>> What's rejected > is the explanation of these facts to act as
>> a mechanism causing evolutionary change. And the explanation
>> itself is observed to be incomprehensible. Your inability to
>> understand natural selection as nonsense, contradiction, illogical,
>> counterintuitive, tautologous and therefore meaningless and
>> pointless, is the real issue here. No such phenomenon exists
>> in the wild.
First prize. Not that that's a good thing.
>
>> No one denies the scientific premises of natural selection.
>> What's rejected > is the explanation of these facts to act as
>> a mechanism causing evolutionary change. And the explanation
>> itself is observed to be incomprehensible. Your inability to
>> understand natural selection as nonsense, contradiction, illogical,
>> counterintuitive, tautologous and therefore meaningless and
>> pointless, is the real issue here. No such phenomenon exists
>> in the wild.
>======
>
>In the category "Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Pinky":
>
>>I agree with you, but what does any of this have to do
>>with directed panspermia?
>======
>
>This doesn't require a Chez Watt nomination; what's required is a Chez
>Watt nomination.
>
>> And that which was never true to begin with (evolution) doesn't
>> require refutation. What's required is explanation as to why a false
>> concept and theory is accepted...
>======
>
>In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
>you meant, but ..."
>
>>> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
>>> philosophy course and pass it,
>
>>Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
>>philosophy course?
test.
Robert Carnegie
Jul 1, 2013, 7:37:43 PM7/1/13
to
> In the Nameless (No One) Memorial Award Category
>
> > No one denies the scientific premises of natural selection.
> > What's rejected > is the explanation of these facts to act as
> > a mechanism causing evolutionary change. And the explanation
> > itself is observed to be incomprehensible. Your inability to
> > understand natural selection as nonsense, contradiction, illogical,
> > counterintuitive, tautologous and therefore meaningless and
> > pointless, is the real issue here. No such phenomenon exists
> > in the wild.
You had me at "Nameless". But as Pink Floyd nearly said,
>
> > No one denies the scientific premises of natural selection.
> > What's rejected > is the explanation of these facts to act as
> > a mechanism causing evolutionary change. And the explanation
> > itself is observed to be incomprehensible. Your inability to
> > understand natural selection as nonsense, contradiction, illogical,
> > counterintuitive, tautologous and therefore meaningless and
> > pointless, is the real issue here. No such phenomenon exists
> > in the wild.
matter of fact they're all nameless.
shane
Jul 1, 2013, 10:10:25 PM7/1/13
to
Two nominations from the OT: SCOTUS Strikes Down DOMA thread have been
missed,
And gravity isn't anywhere near as
fixed and immutable as the moral laws which apply to conscious living
beings
Nominated by solar penguin
And
What does marriage have to do with being with the people you love?
Nominated by Mitchell Coffey
missed,
And gravity isn't anywhere near as
fixed and immutable as the moral laws which apply to conscious living
beings
Nominated by solar penguin
And
What does marriage have to do with being with the people you love?
Nominated by Mitchell Coffey
Harvest Dancer
Jul 2, 2013, 12:16:56 PM7/2/13
to
The new Google format is taking some getting used to. Rest assured that these will be included next month.
Burkhard
Jul 2, 2013, 1:14:29 PM7/2/13
to
On Monday, 1 July 2013 23:29:31 UTC+1, Harvest Dancer wrote:
one each for
> > In the "So What Do Vegetables Worship?" category:
>
> > > You can make your life even easier if you define God as "a medium
> > > sized carrot".
>
>
> It's a really fruitful month for Chez Watt.
>
> [Nominates this post as well. Yes, /this/ one.]
>
>
as it allows me to vote for my own post without people noticing, and breach of etiquette
...
and
one each for
> > In the "So What Do Vegetables Worship?" category:
>
> > > You can make your life even easier if you define God as "a medium
> > > sized carrot".
>
>
> It's a really fruitful month for Chez Watt.
>
> [Nominates this post as well. Yes, /this/ one.]
>
>
...
and
Bob Casanova
Jul 2, 2013, 2:06:54 PM7/2/13
to
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:29:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Harvest Dancer
<harves...@hotmail.com>:
>After last month, I'm glad to see people getting back into the spirit of things.
>
>Vote Early, Vote Often, may the Best Watt Win
>
>Jason Harvestdancer
This one, please. While it may not cause an actual
doubletake, it's certainly in the t.o spirit.
>======
>
>In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
>you meant, but ..."
>
>>> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
>>> philosophy course and pass it,
>
>>Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
>>philosophy course?
>
>======
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Harvest Dancer
<harves...@hotmail.com>:
>After last month, I'm glad to see people getting back into the spirit of things.
>
>Vote Early, Vote Often, may the Best Watt Win
>
>Jason Harvestdancer
doubletake, it's certainly in the t.o spirit.
>======
>
>In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
>you meant, but ..."
>
>>> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
>>> philosophy course and pass it,
>
>>Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
>>philosophy course?
>
>======
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
eridanus
Jul 2, 2013, 2:25:19 PM7/2/13
to
eridanus
Mark Isaak
Jul 2, 2013, 5:57:30 PM7/2/13
to
On 7/1/13 3:29 PM, Harvest Dancer wrote:
Second place:
> ======
> In the Nameless (No One) Memorial Award Category
>
>> No one denies the scientific premises of natural selection.
>> What's rejected > is the explanation of these facts to act as
>> a mechanism causing evolutionary change. And the explanation
>> itself is observed to be incomprehensible. Your inability to
>> understand natural selection as nonsense, contradiction, illogical,
>> counterintuitive, tautologous and therefore meaningless and
>> pointless, is the real issue here. No such phenomenon exists
>> in the wild.
> ======
1.5th place:
> ======
> Chez Watt nomination, wishful nihilism category:
>
>> Objective prediction, as in when and how much, is useless.
> ======
First place (from shane's addenda of nominated posts):
> ======
Honorable mention (Disqualified from higher award because "You had to be
there"):
> ======
> In the category "Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Pinky":
>
>> I agree with you, but what does any of this have to do
>> with directed panspermia?
> ======
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Second place:
> ======
> In the Nameless (No One) Memorial Award Category
>
>> No one denies the scientific premises of natural selection.
>> What's rejected > is the explanation of these facts to act as
>> a mechanism causing evolutionary change. And the explanation
>> itself is observed to be incomprehensible. Your inability to
>> understand natural selection as nonsense, contradiction, illogical,
>> counterintuitive, tautologous and therefore meaningless and
>> pointless, is the real issue here. No such phenomenon exists
>> in the wild.
> ======
> ======
> Chez Watt nomination, wishful nihilism category:
>
>> Objective prediction, as in when and how much, is useless.
> ======
> ======
> And gravity isn't anywhere near as
> fixed and immutable as the moral laws which apply to conscious living
> beings
> ======
> fixed and immutable as the moral laws which apply to conscious living
> beings
Honorable mention (Disqualified from higher award because "You had to be
there"):
> ======
> In the category "Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Pinky":
>
>> I agree with you, but what does any of this have to do
>> with directed panspermia?
> ======
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
*Hemidactylus*
Jul 2, 2013, 9:16:44 PM7/2/13
to
On 07/01/2013 06:29 PM, Harvest Dancer wrote:
> After last month, I'm glad to see people getting back into the spirit of things.
>
> Vote Early, Vote Often, may the Best Watt Win
>
> Jason Harvestdancer
>
> ======
>
> After last month, I'm glad to see people getting back into the spirit of things.
>
> Vote Early, Vote Often, may the Best Watt Win
>
> Jason Harvestdancer
>
> ======
>
> In the category: "Shade of Dan Brown's _Inferno_"
>
>> Why not just admit you don't give a damn
This one please since I was probably the only one who "got it" as I was
>
>> Why not just admit you don't give a damn
reading the book at the time. Never read Dan Brown before, but this book
kept my attention as it was set in Florence and had some unnerving
subject matter having to do with a bioengineered sterility inducing
virus that goes global (sorry for the spoiler). The book didn't paint a
very good picture of transhumanism (H+) treating it perhaps quite
unfairly, in the way it included the main antagonist (the "Shade") in
the ranks of this more or less innocuous movement.
I did learn who this guy was : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM-2030
along the way. Before _Inferno_ I had only heard of Kurzweil.
It's Brown throwing old Renaissance history together with modern
futurism in a very offputting manner. A disturbing point was made about
the ethics of letting a catastrophe, like the population explosion, move
along the tracks at breakneck speed and slam against a tragic brick wall
of putative human extinction or do something about it, but it's the
"something done" that really bothered me. The virus worked like a
sterility lottery, in that a given percentage of humans would become
sterile (yeah I think I ruined the book for just about everyone now) but
it wasn't a deadly plague. Should make a great movie when Tom Hanks is
80. He still has to do Lost Symbol first.
There were some major plot twists and I'd have to carefully go back
through the book again to see if everything played out consistently, as
I wasn't looking for the proper cues first time around. The twists
played on how readers tend to fill in backstories of their own, without
the author explicitly putting those erroneous dots together. There was a
lot implied that could easily misconstrued and it worked on me as I bit
the hooks along the way.
Walter Bushell
Jul 3, 2013, 10:40:55 AM7/3/13
to
In article <7d7be5ba-a8bd-4ebd...@googlegroups.com>,
it first.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Harvest Dancer <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
> you meant, but ..."
>
> >> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
> >> philosophy course and pass it,
>
> >Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
> >philosophy course?
Obviously before you can pass a philosophy course, you have to swallow
> In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
> you meant, but ..."
>
> >> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
> >> philosophy course and pass it,
>
> >Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
> >philosophy course?
it first.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
TimR
Jul 3, 2013, 11:16:38 AM7/3/13
to
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 9:16:44 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 07/01/2013 06:29 PM, Harvest Dancer wrote:
>
> > After last month, I'm glad to see people getting back into the spirit of things.
>
> >
>
> > Vote Early, Vote Often, may the Best Watt Win
>
> >
>
> > Jason Harvestdancer
>
> >
>
> > ======
>
>
>
> >
>
> > In the category: "Shade of Dan Brown's _Inferno_"
>
> >
>
> >> Why not just admit you don't give a damn
>
>
>
> This one please since I was probably the only one who "got it" as I was
>
> reading the book at the time. Never read Dan Brown before, but this book
>
> kept my attention as it was set in Florence and had some unnerving
>
> subject matter having to do with a bioengineered sterility inducing
>
> virus that goes global (sorry for the spoiler).
Sorry to be off topic but do you recommend the book? I haven't read that one.
> On 07/01/2013 06:29 PM, Harvest Dancer wrote:
>
> > After last month, I'm glad to see people getting back into the spirit of things.
>
> >
>
> > Vote Early, Vote Often, may the Best Watt Win
>
> >
>
> > Jason Harvestdancer
>
> >
>
> > ======
>
>
>
> >
>
> > In the category: "Shade of Dan Brown's _Inferno_"
>
> >
>
> >> Why not just admit you don't give a damn
>
>
>
> This one please since I was probably the only one who "got it" as I was
>
> reading the book at the time. Never read Dan Brown before, but this book
>
> kept my attention as it was set in Florence and had some unnerving
>
> subject matter having to do with a bioengineered sterility inducing
>
> virus that goes global (sorry for the spoiler).
I read a couple of his others, and saw a tiny bit of the movie before I gave up in disgust at the total unbelievability.
I've lived in Europe, and it is NOT NOT NOT possible to find a parking spot in any of the areas where the action took place.
RAM
Jul 3, 2013, 11:36:45 PM7/3/13
to
On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 9:40:55 AM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <7d7be5ba-a8bd-4ebd...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Harvest Dancer <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
>
> > you meant, but ..."
>
> >
>
> > >> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
>
> > >> philosophy course and pass it,
>
> >
>
> > >Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
>
> > >philosophy course?
>
>
>
> Obviously before you can pass a philosophy course, you have to swallow
>
> it first.
>
>
This leads to ideopathic dystopia, a highly debilitating disease characterized by logorrhea, verbal diarrhea and ism constipation. There is no known cure. Treatment studies reveal oral imodiums of postmodern kaopectate have severe and adverse side effects. Most notably the painful screaming and yelling heard when Philosophy Professors grade students' final exams.
> In article <7d7be5ba-a8bd-4ebd...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Harvest Dancer <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
>
> > you meant, but ..."
>
> >
>
> > >> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
>
> > >> philosophy course and pass it,
>
> >
>
> > >Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
>
> > >philosophy course?
>
>
>
> Obviously before you can pass a philosophy course, you have to swallow
>
> it first.
>
>
John S. Wilkins
Jul 4, 2013, 3:52:11 AM7/4/13
to
RAM <ramat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 9:40:55 AM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <7d7be5ba-a8bd-4ebd...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Harvest Dancer <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
> > > you meant, but ..."
> > >
> > > >> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
> > > >> philosophy course and pass it,
> > >
> > > >Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
> > > >philosophy course?
> >
> > Obviously before you can pass a philosophy course, you have to swallow
> > it first.
> >
>
> This leads to ideopathic dystopia, a highly debilitating disease
> characterized by logorrhea, verbal diarrhea and ism constipation. There
> is no known cure. Treatment studies reveal oral imodiums of postmodern
> kaopectate have severe and adverse side effects. Most notably the painful
> screaming and yelling heard when Philosophy Professors grade students'
> final exams.
Having just finished marking philosophy essays, I have to concur. Excuse
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 9:40:55 AM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <7d7be5ba-a8bd-4ebd...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Harvest Dancer <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
> > > you meant, but ..."
> > >
> > > >> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
> > > >> philosophy course and pass it,
> > >
> > > >Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
> > > >philosophy course?
> >
> > Obviously before you can pass a philosophy course, you have to swallow
> > it first.
> >
>
> This leads to ideopathic dystopia, a highly debilitating disease
> characterized by logorrhea, verbal diarrhea and ism constipation. There
> is no known cure. Treatment studies reveal oral imodiums of postmodern
> kaopectate have severe and adverse side effects. Most notably the painful
> screaming and yelling heard when Philosophy Professors grade students'
> final exams.
me, I need to visit the bathroom urgently.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Burkhard
Jul 4, 2013, 5:24:05 AM7/4/13
to
On Thursday, 4 July 2013 04:36:45 UTC+1, RAM wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> >
>
> > Obviously before you can pass a philosophy course, you have to swallow
>
> >
>
> > it first.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> This leads to ideopathic dystopia, a highly debilitating disease characterized by logorrhea, verbal diarrhea and ism constipation. There is no known cure. Treatment studies reveal oral imodiums of postmodern kaopectate have severe and adverse side effects. Most notably the painful screaming and yelling heard when Philosophy Professors grade students' final exams.
>
Not of the prof is a carrier himself, that can make a big Différance.
>
> > Obviously before you can pass a philosophy course, you have to swallow
>
> >
>
> > it first.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> This leads to ideopathic dystopia, a highly debilitating disease characterized by logorrhea, verbal diarrhea and ism constipation. There is no known cure. Treatment studies reveal oral imodiums of postmodern kaopectate have severe and adverse side effects. Most notably the painful screaming and yelling heard when Philosophy Professors grade students' final exams.
>
Harvest Dancer
Jul 9, 2013, 2:17:20 PM7/9/13
to
And here are July's winners. Winning authors and nominators are invited to come forward for credit / blame as appropriate.
Jason Harvestdancer
First Place
> In the Nameless (No One) Memorial Award Category
>
> > No one denies the scientific premises of natural selection.
> > What's rejected > is the explanation of these facts to act as
> > a mechanism causing evolutionary change. And the explanation
> > itself is observed to be incomprehensible. Your inability to
> > understand natural selection as nonsense, contradiction, illogical,
> > counterintuitive, tautologous and therefore meaningless and
> > pointless, is the real issue here. No such phenomenon exists
> > in the wild.
Second Place
> In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
> you meant, but ..."
>
> >> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
> >> philosophy course and pass it,
>
> >Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
> >philosophy course?
Third place
> Chez Watt nomination, wishful nihilism category:
>
> > Objective prediction, as in when and how much, is useless.
Jason Harvestdancer
First Place
> In the Nameless (No One) Memorial Award Category
>
> > No one denies the scientific premises of natural selection.
> > What's rejected > is the explanation of these facts to act as
> > a mechanism causing evolutionary change. And the explanation
> > itself is observed to be incomprehensible. Your inability to
> > understand natural selection as nonsense, contradiction, illogical,
> > counterintuitive, tautologous and therefore meaningless and
> > pointless, is the real issue here. No such phenomenon exists
> > in the wild.
> In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
> you meant, but ..."
>
> >> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
> >> philosophy course and pass it,
>
> >Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
> >philosophy course?
> Chez Watt nomination, wishful nihilism category:
>
> > Objective prediction, as in when and how much, is useless.
> ======
>
> In the category "Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Pinky":
>
> >I agree with you, but what does any of this have to do
> >with directed panspermia?
>
> ======
>
> This doesn't require a Chez Watt nomination; what's required is a Chez
> Watt nomination.
>
> > And that which was never true to begin with (evolution) doesn't
> > require refutation. What's required is explanation as to why a false
> > concept and theory is accepted...
>
> ======
>
>
>
> In the category "Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Pinky":
>
> >I agree with you, but what does any of this have to do
> >with directed panspermia?
>
> ======
>
> This doesn't require a Chez Watt nomination; what's required is a Chez
> Watt nomination.
>
> > And that which was never true to begin with (evolution) doesn't
> > require refutation. What's required is explanation as to why a false
> > concept and theory is accepted...
>
> ======
>
>
> ======
>
> In the category: "Shade of Dan Brown's _Inferno_"
>
> > Why not just admit you don't give a damn
> > what the world will be like with 8 or 9 billion people?
>
> ======
>
>
>
> In the category: "Shade of Dan Brown's _Inferno_"
>
> > Why not just admit you don't give a damn
> > what the world will be like with 8 or 9 billion people?
>
> ======
>
>
Bob Casanova
Jul 10, 2013, 2:43:59 PM7/10/13
to
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:17:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
Second place for a nomination is better than being slapped
upside the head with a dead mackerel. I guess... ;-)
>And here are July's winners. Winning authors and nominators are invited to come forward for credit / blame as appropriate.
>
>Jason Harvestdancer
>
>Jason Harvestdancer
>Second Place
>
>> In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
>> you meant, but ..."
>>
>> >> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
>> >> philosophy course and pass it,
>>
>> >Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
>> >philosophy course?
Thankew, thankew, thankew.
>
>> In the category: "I know you think that's what you thought
>> you meant, but ..."
>>
>> >> before anyone takes a science course they should have to take the
>> >> philosophy course and pass it,
>>
>> >Do the test takers get to argue about what it really means to pass a
>> >philosophy course?
Second place for a nomination is better than being slapped
upside the head with a dead mackerel. I guess... ;-)
0 new messages