John Smith I wrote:

...
The cat is king of this jungle ... :-(

Regards,
JS

Yep, I am afraid I will have to side with your wife on that one ... LOL!

JS

Cecil Moore wrote:

If a billion people called a cat a lion, it would be a
lion by definition. Incidentally, a lion *is* a cat.
From Webster's: "cat - any animal of the family that
includes domestic cats, lions, tigers, and leopards."

But common usage is that "cat" means those thing usually found
shredding drapes when they aren't hanging out on the window sill
just as common usage is that theory...

So which definition do you use for a given word Cecil, the common,
usually abiguous one, the precise, context based one, or whichever
leads to the most semantic games?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

John Smith I wrote:
I draw no firm conclusions on global warming and have little hope
science will prevail in the near future.

Here's probably all you need to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png

Note the temperature today is ~6 deg *below* the peak
temperature of 130,000 years ago, ~3 deg below the
peak of 240,000 years ago, ~5 deg below the peak of
340,000 years ago, and ~2 degrees below the peak of
410,000 years ago. As far as natural global warming
cycle peak temperatures go, the present one is
relatively cool - plus the fact that it peaked 8000
years ago indicating that we are already in the
next ice age cycle. Just ask the folks in Denver. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
But common usage is that "cat" means those thing usually found
shredding drapes ...

Yet there are none of that species in the "Cat House"
at the local zoo, also common usage.

"Felis silvestris" will leave no doubt as to the
species being referenced although "domestic cat"
will do.

For scientific theories extremely unlikely to be proved
wrong, maybe you use the word, "principle", instead
of "theory"?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Yet there are none of that species in the "Cat House"
at the local zoo, also common usage.

The closest "Cat House" that I know of is just outside Las Vegas.

For scientific theories extremely unlikely to be proved
wrong, maybe you use the word, "principle", instead
of "theory"?

But what if the post gets cross posted to a group such as
sci.physics.research where there is a greater percentage of educated
readers than r.r.a.a and semantic game playing isn't allowed?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
But what if the post gets cross posted to a group such as
sci.physics.research where there is a greater percentage of educated
readers than r.r.a.a and semantic game playing isn't allowed?

Sounds like you shouldn't bother trying to post there.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
But what if the post gets cross posted to a group such as
sci.physics.research where there is a greater percentage of educated
readers than r.r.a.a and semantic game playing isn't allowed?

Sounds like you shouldn't bother trying to post there.

With topics like "Water burns" and "Gaussian antennas", I seldom do.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 16, 8:05 am, wrote:

So which definition do you use for a given word Cecil, the common,
usually abiguous one, the precise, context based one, or whichever
leads to the most semantic games?

It usually turns out that he used the one which allows whatever he
said to be true in some context.

73, ac6xg

On 16 Jun, 09:45, wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
But what if the post gets cross posted to a group such as
sci.physics.research where there is a greater percentage of educated
readers than r.r.a.a and semantic game playing isn't allowed?
Sounds like you shouldn't bother trying to post there.

With topics like "Water burns" and "Gaussian antennas", I seldom do.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim,
you have posted 1000+ in newsgroups starting with "sci" and as with
this group
you have never met a person that you could like. Seems like the word
babble,idiot
a few swear words, moron,etc is what you base your posts around. It
does appear
to me that the aviation people took you at your word when you said
you wanted
to be buried in Chicago when you said you would not post in that
newsgroup again.
Now you have rissen from the dead where you can hurt as many people as
you can
in this newsgroup with your own style of babble. Why do you wake up in
the morning?
There surely something in the World where you could be happy instead
of hanging
around here. Find out where that place is and go there and this time
work on
building up some credability in your enunciations if your ideals are
to have a
sensible conversation instead of abusive one liners that you now
thrive upon.
To use a life like the way you are squandering yours is a very sad
thing to watch.

Cecil Moore wrote in news:ZLGci.19671$C96.7397
@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific
theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of
something that is more correct.

Those who do are definitely not using the scientific method, are
they?

Well, let's take an example. There was a theory that
the smallest independent organism couldn't be smaller
than ~1 um. Using the scientific method, no organism
smaller than that was discovered for decades.
Now we have apparently discovered an independent
organism 50 times smaller than the theory allowed.
Was the theory right or wrong?

I believe that the hypothesis was wrong. minimum size for a life form
doesn't make it quite as far as a theory to me. Based on what we knew t
the time, it wasn't a bad guess.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -