|
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:44:09 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Well, no, that's my whole point. Something has to "guide" the development of life. Why? Otherwise there would be no progress, only a random jumbling of unrelated mutations. Something has to determine which mutations are an "improvement", and whether those traits will be carried on. It seems pretty simple to me -- a frog with poisonous skin doesn't get eaten, and a tiger without teeth doesn't eat. It takes about as much intelligence to figure out which species survives as it does to figure out why. So why can't you figure it out? snip What determines what works best? If, as you suggest, all advances in evolution occur as a random mutation (Which it would have to be if it were not deliberately introduced), what feedback mechanism exists to determine whether that single mutation will proliferate to other species, or even descendants of the same species? When a mutation survives long enough to reproduce. Or was that a trick question? Do you think that rain must come from God because we don't know how it gets into the sky? ....oh, wait a sec, we -do- know how it gets into the sky. Bad example. So do you think that the Earth is at the center of the Univ..... uh, forget that one, Galileo really shamed the church when he proved that the Earth orbits the Sun. Ok, how about this: The rainbow -must- be proof of God because it...... nope, Newton shot that one down in flames. Well how about music? God must have invented music, right? After all, how did birds learn how to sing? oops, another bad example...... Gee Dave, it sure looks like all of God's "creations" are slowly being discovered to be nothing more than natural phenomena. Except maybe for Michael Jackson. So because some examples of physics can be accurately demonstrated, that there is no possibility of intelligent design and guidance? I didn't say anything of the sort. I said, but you can't understand, that when something isn't fully understood or remains undiscovered it isn't automatically considered to be an act of God. That process of thought may have been the 'tradition' for several thousand years but not any longer. At least not for most of us. -- when you consider that the bell curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly -ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention. You're just too hung up of formal religion. It's preventing you to consider the possibility. Just because a certain part of the ocean is unexplored doesn't mean it's inhabited with monsters. Doesn't mean that it isn't either. So because the possibility exists, we should conclude that those monsters -must- exist? Of course not. You -believe- they exist because that's what -you- want to believe. The rest of us hoist sail and go discover the facts. -You- are too hung up on religion to realize that randomness (aka, 'chaos') is nothing more than a term used to describe the collective effect of dynamic systems that are either so numerous or complex that their components -have yet- to be isolated and identified. Random and chaos are exactly that, actions which occur with no pattern or forethought. Haven't you been paying attention, Dave? Nothing occurs "with no pattern". The patterns are there, they are just too numerous or complex to identify. Weather was once thought to be random and/or chaotic. But thanks to people that are more intelligent than you we have learned patterns of weather well enough to predict, with some degree of certainty, what it will do in the future. That doesn't mean a seemingly random process -doesn't- have a logical and scientific explanation, only that the process is as yet unidentified. But you can't build order from chaos. At least not without some intelligence guiding it. Wrong. Nature if full of examples of where order grew out of chaos -without- intelligent guidance. It happens all the time. You can duplicate the process yourself with a child's science experiment: growing crystals. And if you can't understand that much then you probably still check under your bed every night for the boogie man. Why? More false analogy fallacies? Because we know enough to determine that there is no "boogieman", does not mean that we know enough to discount the existence of "God". That's the difference between you and me, Dave: You believe what you want to believe until it can be proven wrong (and sometimes even proof isn't enough). I, on the other hand, need proof -before- I'll believe in something so outlandish as an omniscient, omnipotent super-being that 'willed' the Universe into existence. And if there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI. Well now, you ARE making progress. You opened your mind for a split second. Tell me Frank, what is the definition of "God"? ROTFLMMFAO!!! You aren't suggesting that God is a collective of little grey humanoids from the planet Zorkon, are you? Beam me up, Scotty! Why not? Is it not within the realm of possibilities that what we consider "God" may be a superior intelligence which created this planet for who knows what reason (Other than 42)? Adams was pointing out that the Universe can't be reduced to a simple equation. I agree, but his implication was that there must be some divine influence, to which I don't agree. Adams is not an authority on the subject. And for you to cite his work in a context contrary to its meaning is proof that you are not an authority on Adams. May the force be with you, Dave! It always has been. OB1 has taught you well, young Jedi. But here is something you must know: I am your father, Dave. At least that's what your mother told me after she lost two other paternity suits. Since it is likely that I am older than you, that is a physical impossibility. But the increasing personal insults is a sure sign that you have run out of facts and logic, and have resorted to ad-hominem to make you case. The best you can hope for in this discussion is a stalemate. There are simply not enough facts to make your case. You keep on believing that, Dave. Include it in your bedtime prayers to the saucer men -- right after you make sure the boogie man isn't lurking under the bed. snip More insults? The fact is that you can't answer the question, and chose instead to mock me. What can I say -- your arguments are illogical and repetitive, you show no ability to think independently, your opinions are founded on ignorance, the 'facts' you present are fabrications based on your own assumptions, your vocabulary includes words you don't understand, and your rhetoric is no better than that of a grade-school bully. Yet you continue to put on your facade that you are somehow outsmarting me at every turn and refuse to see just how profoundly stupid you sound when you try. So how can I possibly resist? I mock you because you ask for it, Dave. In fact, I have been mocking you for months but you are too stupid to understand how. The difference is that now I've dumbed-down my remarks to a level low enough that you can see them for what they really are. You believe what you want to believe based on nothing more than pure faith, which is no different than what I do. But the difference is that you arrogantly insist that I am somehow "wrong". Because you -are- wrong, and here's a little experiment you can do to demonstrate just how wrong you are. First, find a wall made of brick or concrete. Then sit you butt down, pray to the saucer men, and ask them to turn the wall into jello. Draw upon your faith to believe that when you perform the next step in the experiment that the wall will most certainly be jello. Then curl up your little fist and hit the wall just as hard as you can. By the time the pain subsides you will understand that, even though you can -choose- to believe anything you want, facts define reality. You tell yourself that facts and logic back you up, but the truth is that there are little facts available to make a positive determination on whether life here evolved purely at random, and without any outside influence. You further re-enforce your faith by telling yourself that the facts are out there, and that we just haven't found them yet. And while this is most likely true, you should be careful what you wish for. For the answers you seek may not be the ones you want to hear. ......oh brother. What drives that purpose? When Moses asked God what the people should call him, God responded, "I am that I am." IOW, God exists for the sake of himself. Interesting that you quote something that you deny the existence of, The Bible doesn't exist? to make a point. Of course the irony of that position was not lost on me. For us mortals it isn't much different -- life is spent propogating ourselves. For human males that consists of impregnating as many females as possible, hence the common characteristic of men to "love 'em and leave 'em", and their willingness to screw just about anything that is receptive to their advances. The female reproductive role is more complex. Traditionally it has been to nurture and protect the larvae until they can be kicked out of the house. This explains why some women are gold-diggers (money = security, taken to an extreme). That is a hopelessly jaded position to take. You basically stated that all males have an intrinsic excuse for infidelity, in that they are instinctively hard wired for such behavior. The fact that was can transcend instinctive behavior plays no part in this I guess.... I never claimed it was an excuse, nor did I suggest that we can't overcome our instincts. snip BTW, this isn't my theory. It's from a well-documented study on human behavior that has been supported by numerous independent studies. I know all too well. The Learning Channel had an very interesting series on human behavior and covered this topic and the parallels in the animal world. I also used this information in a debate once with a hard core feminist, who was forwarding the " all men are pigs" notion, and defended their behavior as instinctive programming. Of course, I did it just for the reaction. I believe that using primitive instinctive traits to justify unacceptable social behavior is simply a lame excuse for those who have a weak will. Where did I suggest that instinctive behavior should be used to justify anything? Are you using that crystal ball again, Dave? But if you need to find a purpose that transcends natural biology, try the simple fact that we -can- transcend biology. That, by itself, as a "purpose" for life, is reflected heavily in the Bhuddist faith and to some extent with the Hindu. The 'challenge' of life, therefore, is to overcome our animal instincts and attain a higher level of being. Hence the enlightened and evolved call for a monogamous union. If that's your choice. snip Of course you could always take a perspective from Monty Python, but I think Monty Python itself is reason enough to live. I was never that much of a Python fan. I'm not suprised. snip See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not? snip But what decides which mutation, many of which could adapt to the environment (a 3rd or 4th eye for instance), actually survives enough to become incorporated into the mainstream? Survival of the fittest. Variations that improve survivability are regenerated. Variations that are useless aren't regenerated because they hinder survivability; i.e, they are excess baggage. snip I have studied the subject and the questions I raise are analytical and logical in nature. Either evolution is designed to improve the species, or not. If it is, then what feedback determines what is actually an improvement. If not, then what does improve the species? Making sure that mutants like you don't reproduce. snip I suppose I should start with Rocky and Bulwinkle. You see, Rocky is a "flying squirrel". They don't really fly, but glide from one place to another using skin that has overgrown. The skin probably evolved because the critters kept falling out of the trees, and the species with the variation of loose skin allowed more of them to survive the falls. Then why do other squirrels not have loose skin? Do they not fall from trees as well? Why only the "flying" squirrel? And what determined whether that skin actually helped them, other those other squirrels who don't? Why do you need me to explain these things to you? Don't you have a brain? Can't you figure it out for yourself? Try it. Put yourself into a logical frame of mind, temporarily adopt my method of thought, and try answering your own question for once. Easy enough. The next logical step would be an variation of their "wings" that would allow them to glide for longer periods of time, and over greater distances. Perhaps even a variation where muscle movement gives a little extra flight time. Eventually, over a few hundred thousand years and thousands of generations, there will probably be a squirrel that can really fly. Better late than never? Birds already fly. Why would a squirrel need to fly now? What tactical advantage would that provide it over non-flying squirrels? Would those random mutations also thin its bones, and provide the proper lift/drag ratio in order to attain sustained flight? Why not? It worked with dinosaurs, didn't it? But you propose that one day there was a rat, then a miracle occured and *poof* there was a bat? I don't think so, Dave. Despite the fact that you don't "think" so, does not mean that that's exactly what might have happened. It's certainly easier to rationalize than a series of random mutations adding up to a viable new species. It's easier to believe in instantaneous transformation when your mind is too small to fathom the vast amounts of time nature has had to 'play God', so to speak. snip Again, your religious prejudice is blinding you from considering the likely notion of intelligent design and guidance. First of all, it's not "prejudice". I have 'prejudged' nothing. You, OTOH, have done exactly that -- you conclude that God is responsible for certain things -before- you have all the facts. Secondly, the idea of divine intervention is not "likely" at all since every phenomonon that was ever attributed to God is being discovered to have been caused by some natural process. Statistically, religion is dying. And it's too bad that people don't see that as a good thing -- or did you forget the part about the Babelfish? The theory of intelligent design is no more far-fetched than the idea that life began here spontaneously and proliferated into a diverse eco system, totally at random. You are assuming that "life began here spontaneously" and evolved "totally at random". Research strongly suggests that neither are true. The someone had to "plant" it. The rooster came first, eh? ......Why do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul? Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical. Yes, but it all relates in the bigger picture. Talk to Skippy about your "bigger picture" cause that type of BS doesn't wash with me. I don't even buy into the concept of a "grand unified theory". Who is "Skippy"? One of the voodoo amp-techs that used to hang out in this group until he tried to explain the operation of a grounded-grid triode with: "it's part of a bigger picture". So you have noticed that animals are different and have different characteristics. Congratulations. What you -haven't- learned that the same is true within the human species. Yea some are good and other not -so. But none can fly on their own. I didn't know that was a requirement for species diversity. Yes, animals possess some intellectual capabilities. Beavers are pretty good engineers, and nobody can tell me that their behavior is purely instinctual since the circumstances for every beaver dam are different, and requires some intelligence in order to build those "crude" tools. Yea, it's called "teeth". Who taught them how to build those dams? Another loaded question: You are assuming that they needed to be taught. And by "'crude' tools" I was referring to the dams, not teeth. The fact remains that a certain amount of intelligence and ingenuity is required of the species in order to build such structures in such a wide variety of locations and circumstances. Which brings us back to the pertinent question: Which came first, the intelligence or the dam? According to -your- beliefs, the rooster came first. snip And just about every animal has some form of communication, not just dolphins and a few others. Ants communicate with chemicals, bees communicate by 'dancing', dogs communicate by ****ing on trees and smelling each others butts, etc, etc. Rudimentary at best. Nothing as complex as what humans have achieved. Assuming that's correct, are you suggesting that human complexity is what comprises a 'soul'? But on the other hand, why would anyone think that human behavior is anything more than extentions of natural instinct? Everything we do somehow revolves around basic natural urges, whether it be breathing, sleeping, eating, sex, reproduction, dying, etc. Probably the only two characteristics that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our propensity to destroy ourselves and our ability to show mercy. Boy are you cynically misguided. You think that all that humans do revolves around eating, sleeping and sex? What about those who create? What makes you think that art and music are something other than extentions of instinctual behaviors? Animals attract mates with singing, dancing, showing their plumage, building nests, etc. It's also a method of communication that extends beyond verbal language. Those who philosophize? Ever read "The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam"? Those who teach? Procreation -- "It takes a village to raise a child." Those who excel at physical activity? Demonstrations of physical prowness, rutting, etc. Those to seek answers to larger questions? Isn't that the same as philosophy? Those who achieve greatness in any number of fields? Like politics? But then again, the former doesn't differentiate us from lemmings, and the latter is more a recognition of the futility of life than it is a divine influence. Either way, man can be just as cruel as nature and frequently proves that to be a fact. So what you are in essence saying is that since we will all eventually die, what's the point of living? No, but it's been suggested by others more than once. So what's the difference between man and animal? Human arrogance in thinking he is something more than just another product of nature. I'd like to think we are the most advanced product of the divine intelligence. Like I said befo You can believe what you want to believe but the facts define reality. snip The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. I understand them perfectly. Then you have an understanding that exceeds that of the entire scientific community. I just do not accept that complexity can result from randomness. I'm assuming you mean 'order from chaos', but either way you are wrong. Just walk into any jewelry store and look at the diamonds. I don't accept the theory that if you place a group of monkeys in a cage with a bunch of typewriters that they'll eventually write every great piece of literary works. I don't either. Whose theory was that? http://www.angelfire.com/in/hypnoson...e_Monkeys.html There are many others. I'm surprised that in that vast storehouse of knowledge that you claim to posses, that you have not stumbled on this before. I have, I just didn't know who said it. snip There are still far too many unanswered questions to discount the theory of intelligent design. Discount it? No. But neither does it mean that we should jump to that conclusion because we haven't learned everything we can. I conclude nothing of the sort. That's -exactly- what you claim when you say that God is responsible for any missing evolutionary link. And you ignore the fact that those links are gradually being found. But I have an especially hard time accepting the totally at random theory of evolution, and prefer to believe that evolution was guided by an unseen intelligent force. We may disagree on the exact definition of that intelligence, and without facts, it's pointless to debate it beyond that point other than from a purely philosophical perspective. Great. Maybe now we can get back to the original topic. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:22:08 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:44:09 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Well, no, that's my whole point. Something has to "guide" the development of life. Why? Otherwise there would be no progress, only a random jumbling of unrelated mutations. Something has to determine which mutations are an "improvement", and whether those traits will be carried on. It seems pretty simple to me -- a frog with poisonous skin doesn't get eaten, and a tiger without teeth doesn't eat. It takes about as much intelligence to figure out which species survives as it does to figure out why. So why can't you figure it out? Because for any improvement to be gauged as effective, there has to be a means of feedback. One mutated frog with poisonous skin will eventually die of it's own accord. So what determines whether this mutation is worthy of being carried on? snip What determines what works best? If, as you suggest, all advances in evolution occur as a random mutation (Which it would have to be if it were not deliberately introduced), what feedback mechanism exists to determine whether that single mutation will proliferate to other species, or even descendants of the same species? When a mutation survives long enough to reproduce. Or was that a trick question? But random mutations occur frequently. Many of them could conceivably reproduce. What decided which ones are beneficial, and which are merely "different"? Some new traits (like flight for instance) require more than one mutation to fully accomplish. What are the chances that each necessary mutation would occur in the same species randomly and at the same time to facilitate these new traits? What force drove water borne life to crawl out onto the shore? How could random mutations know the precise mutation to give those creatures the ability to breath air? Do you understand the nature of randomness? Randomness is exactly that. Things which occur for no reason. You may need lungs, but you might get a third eye, or longer fins. The minute you start looking into purpose driven mutations, you (however unwittingly) are accepting intelligent guidance. So because some examples of physics can be accurately demonstrated, that there is no possibility of intelligent design and guidance? I didn't say anything of the sort. I said, but you can't understand, that when something isn't fully understood or remains undiscovered it isn't automatically considered to be an act of God. That process of thought may have been the 'tradition' for several thousand years but not any longer. At least not for most of us. Yes, and some people may spend their whole lives looking for a "scientific" answer that will forever elude them, rather than admit that there are forces and events out there that we cannot explain. Just because a certain part of the ocean is unexplored doesn't mean it's inhabited with monsters. Doesn't mean that it isn't either. So because the possibility exists, we should conclude that those monsters -must- exist? No, but neither should we discard it. Of course not. You -believe- they exist because that's what -you- want to believe. The rest of us hoist sail and go discover the facts. That's great if the facts are there to find. We can tell, for instance that dinosaurs roamed the earth, that there were big climatic and geological changes over the years. But we cannot factually answer the question of why these things all happened, and what precipitated it all. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that it all started as a random happenstance. There are far too many variables and too much random chaos for this level of intricate sophistication to have occurred and evolved by any other means than intelligent design and guidance. We can argue about the definition of "god", or whether such cosmic intelligence warrants the label of "god", but as far as I'm concerned, such a force exists. The evidence is all around us. -You- are too hung up on religion to realize that randomness (aka, 'chaos') is nothing more than a term used to describe the collective effect of dynamic systems that are either so numerous or complex that their components -have yet- to be isolated and identified. Random and chaos are exactly that, actions which occur with no pattern or forethought. Haven't you been paying attention, Dave? Nothing occurs "with no pattern". The patterns are there, they are just too numerous or complex to identify. Is that the excuse you use to try to turn chaos into order? Do you see pictures in TV snow too? Weather was once thought to be random and/or chaotic. And to some degree it still is. Despite the modern level of technology that meteorologists have, they still cannot get a weather forecast right in most cases But thanks to people that are more intelligent than you we have learned patterns of weather well enough to predict, with some degree of certainty, what it will do in the future. We can determine within a certain level of error, what SHOULD happen. But despite computer models, the weather often makes unpredicted shifts. Which is why we sit here expecting a foot of snow, and get a dusting, or a rogue storm develops out of thin air and levels a block's worth of trees. That doesn't mean a seemingly random process -doesn't- have a logical and scientific explanation, only that the process is as yet unidentified. But you can't build order from chaos. At least not without some intelligence guiding it. Wrong. Nature if full of examples of where order grew out of chaos -without- intelligent guidance. How do you know there was no guidance if you cannot identify it? It happens all the time. You can duplicate the process yourself with a child's science experiment: growing crystals. There is nothing orderly about that. No two crystals grows exactly the same. And if you can't understand that much then you probably still check under your bed every night for the boogie man. Why? More false analogy fallacies? Because we know enough to determine that there is no "boogieman", does not mean that we know enough to discount the existence of "God". That's the difference between you and me, Dave: You believe what you want to believe until it can be proven wrong (and sometimes even proof isn't enough). No, I believe what makes the most sense based on the facts known and the principle of Occam's Razor. I, on the other hand, need proof -before- I'll believe in something so outlandish as an omniscient, omnipotent super-being that 'willed' the Universe into existence. Let's hope for your sake that you're right. ROTFLMMFAO!!! You aren't suggesting that God is a collective of little grey humanoids from the planet Zorkon, are you? Beam me up, Scotty! Why not? Is it not within the realm of possibilities that what we consider "God" may be a superior intelligence which created this planet for who knows what reason (Other than 42)? Adams was pointing out that the Universe can't be reduced to a simple equation. I agree, but his implication was that there must be some divine influence, to which I don't agree. Adams is not an authority on the subject. And for you to cite his work in a context contrary to its meaning is proof that you are not an authority on Adams. It was a joke son! Adams writes humor. Since it is likely that I am older than you, that is a physical impossibility. But the increasing personal insults is a sure sign that you have run out of facts and logic, and have resorted to ad-hominem to make you case. The best you can hope for in this discussion is a stalemate. There are simply not enough facts to make your case. You keep on believing that, Dave. Include it in your bedtime prayers to the saucer men No, that's Twisty. He talks to the Saucer men. I merely believe that considering the vastness of the universe, that it statistically improbable that life only exists here. snip More insults? The fact is that you can't answer the question, and chose instead to mock me. What can I say -- your arguments are illogical and repetitive, you show no ability to think independently, your opinions are founded on ignorance, the 'facts' you present are fabrications based on your own assumptions, your vocabulary includes words you don't understand, and your rhetoric is no better than that of a grade-school bully. Projecting again Frank? Where is your "logic"? You mock my "faith" with little more than your own "counterfaith". Yet you continue to put on your facade that you are somehow outsmarting me at every turn And only your own narcissistic arrogance continues to push you into coming back to get smacked down again and again. o how can I possibly resist? I mock you because you ask for it, Dave. In fact, I have been mocking you for months but you are too stupid to understand how. The difference is that now I've dumbed-down my remarks to a level low enough that you can see them for what they really are. Frank, you are merely a diversion from my otherwise challenging work schedule. You provide me with comic relief. You are so rigid and pompous, I can now totally understand why you "chose" to be a loner. Your "people skills" are seriously lacking. You believe what you want to believe based on nothing more than pure faith, which is no different than what I do. But the difference is that you arrogantly insist that I am somehow "wrong". Because you -are- wrong, Based on what factual evidence? and here's a little experiment you can do to demonstrate just how wrong you are. First, find a wall made of brick or concrete. Then sit you butt down, pray to the saucer men, and ask them to turn the wall into jello. Draw upon your faith to believe that when you perform the next step in the experiment that the wall will most certainly be jello. Then curl up your little fist and hit the wall just as hard as you can. It doesn't work that way. Intelligent design does not mean that we command magical powers. By the time the pain subsides you will understand that, even though you can -choose- to believe anything you want, facts define reality. I see how you spin your "facts". Because the cosmic intelligence chose not to respond to my "request", that means that it does not exist? I have a similar experiment for you Frank. Stand out in the middle of a field until you get hit by an asteroid. How long will you stand there until you conclude that asteroids don't exist? You tell yourself that facts and logic back you up, but the truth is that there are little facts available to make a positive determination on whether life here evolved purely at random, and without any outside influence. You further re-enforce your faith by telling yourself that the facts are out there, and that we just haven't found them yet. And while this is most likely true, you should be careful what you wish for. For the answers you seek may not be the ones you want to hear. .....oh brother. When reduced to the nuts and bolts of reality, this is all you can usually respond with. When Moses asked God what the people should call him, God responded, "I am that I am." IOW, God exists for the sake of himself. Interesting that you quote something that you deny the existence of, The Bible doesn't exist? I was referring to God. But if you need to find a purpose that transcends natural biology, try the simple fact that we -can- transcend biology. That, by itself, as a "purpose" for life, is reflected heavily in the Bhuddist faith and to some extent with the Hindu. The 'challenge' of life, therefore, is to overcome our animal instincts and attain a higher level of being. Hence the enlightened and evolved call for a monogamous union. If that's your choice. snip Of course you could always take a perspective from Monty Python, but I think Monty Python itself is reason enough to live. I was never that much of a Python fan. I'm not suprised. Now, I suppose, you'll dazzle us with your theory of how Python is the humor of the intellectual? snip See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not? Frank, I can get as much information as I need right from the internet. It's a lot better than finding places to keep all those books. snip But what decides which mutation, many of which could adapt to the environment (a 3rd or 4th eye for instance), actually survives enough to become incorporated into the mainstream? Survival of the fittest. Variations that improve survivability are regenerated. Sometimes a mutation does not do anything to improve survivability. Do those not regenerate as well? Variations that are useless aren't regenerated because they hinder survivability; i.e, they are excess baggage. Perhaps not. Mutations such as a 3rd eye may not make any difference at all in survivability. snip I have studied the subject and the questions I raise are analytical and logical in nature. Either evolution is designed to improve the species, or not. If it is, then what feedback determines what is actually an improvement. If not, then what does improve the species? Making sure that mutants like you don't reproduce. Lacking a logical and reasoned answer, Frank predictably falls back on his tried and true tactic of insult. I suppose I should start with Rocky and Bulwinkle. You see, Rocky is a "flying squirrel". They don't really fly, but glide from one place to another using skin that has overgrown. The skin probably evolved because the critters kept falling out of the trees, and the species with the variation of loose skin allowed more of them to survive the falls. Then why do other squirrels not have loose skin? Do they not fall from trees as well? Why only the "flying" squirrel? And what determined whether that skin actually helped them, other those other squirrels who don't? Why do you need me to explain these things to you? Don't you have a brain? Can't you figure it out for yourself? Try it. Put yourself into a logical frame of mind, temporarily adopt my method of thought, and try answering your own question for once. I've been there and done all that Frank. Haven't you figured it out yet? I was where you are now. I asked the same questions, made the same observations, believed the same thing. I once believed that there wasn't a question out there that (if given enough time) science couldn't answer. Why do you think I keep giving you questions which you cannot answer other than to theorize? I chuckle watching you stumble, postulate, and then attack me while trying. I had a series of life changing events which then put other similar events into perspective. Since I am not one to believe in random coincidences, these occurrences, taken together, spelled out a specific and seemingly deliberate series of events which appeared to have a purpose. Every event that you undertake in life has specific consequences. Most people do not ponder such things, unless they have a reason to do so. But to put it simply, an event happened to me, which caused me to do something, which led to something else, and so on down the chain. Had those significant events not happened, I would be in a totally different place and situation right now. It all started with my premonition of my father's death the night before it happened when I was 9 years old. What science can explain E.S.P. and similar phenomena? What about ghosts? If life is simply random and meaningless? What explains short glimpses into the "great beyond"? Are all witnesses of ghosts mentally "out there"? What about people with accurate ESP predictions? The military was impressed enough with this that they had programs to develop "remote viewers" to spy on enemies. But for some reason, traditional "nuts and bolts" scientists stray away from such study, and, in fact, try to discredit those who do. Are you one of those close minded people who deal only with those subjects that you can touch and discount anything else? Easy enough. The next logical step would be an variation of their "wings" that would allow them to glide for longer periods of time, and over greater distances. Perhaps even a variation where muscle movement gives a little extra flight time. Eventually, over a few hundred thousand years and thousands of generations, there will probably be a squirrel that can really fly. Better late than never? Birds already fly. Why would a squirrel need to fly now? What tactical advantage would that provide it over non-flying squirrels? Would those random mutations also thin its bones, and provide the proper lift/drag ratio in order to attain sustained flight? Why not? It worked with dinosaurs, didn't it? You once again are assuming that it all happened at random. But you propose that one day there was a rat, then a miracle occured and *poof* there was a bat? I don't think so, Dave. Despite the fact that you don't "think" so, does not mean that that's exactly what might have happened. It's certainly easier to rationalize than a series of random mutations adding up to a viable new species. It's easier to believe in instantaneous transformation when your mind is too small to fathom the vast amounts of time nature has had to 'play God', so to speak. A few million years are but a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. But without purposeful guidance, there's about as much chance of our complex ecosystem developing totally at random, as there is that a bunch of monkeys can randomly type the complete works of Shakespeare. Again, your religious prejudice is blinding you from considering the likely notion of intelligent design and guidance. First of all, it's not "prejudice". I have 'prejudged' nothing. You have. You would rather believe unproven, and bordering on ridiculous theories rather than accept the possibility of an intelligent force. You, OTOH, have done exactly that -- you conclude that God is responsible for certain things -before- you have all the facts. Sometimes, there are forces at work that preclude the need for hard facts. Secondly, the idea of divine intervention is not "likely" at all since every phenomonon that was ever attributed to God is being discovered to have been caused by some natural process. That is totally wrong. Besides, what is a "natural process" anyway? If there is a God, then he can make any number of "natural processes" at his will. Statistically, religion is dying. And it's too bad that people don't see that as a good thing Why should that be a good thing? Religion has helped to rein in many primitive barbaric behaviors and helped civilization become refined and productive. Without such guidance, we wouldn't be much more than our animal cousins, living only for ourselves, and doing what we needed to do just to survive. Talk to Skippy about your "bigger picture" cause that type of BS doesn't wash with me. I don't even buy into the concept of a "grand unified theory". Who is "Skippy"? One of the voodoo amp-techs that used to hang out in this group until he tried to explain the operation of a grounded-grid triode with: "it's part of a bigger picture". A different bigger picture. Yes, animals possess some intellectual capabilities. Beavers are pretty good engineers, and nobody can tell me that their behavior is purely instinctual since the circumstances for every beaver dam are different, and requires some intelligence in order to build those "crude" tools. Yea, it's called "teeth". Who taught them how to build those dams? Another loaded question: You are assuming that they needed to be taught. And by "'crude' tools" I was referring to the dams, not teeth. The fact remains that a certain amount of intelligence and ingenuity is required of the species in order to build such structures in such a wide variety of locations and circumstances. Which brings us back to the pertinent question: Which came first, the intelligence or the dam? According to -your- beliefs, the rooster came first. So you believe that animals possess some analytical skills? Maybe so. One could also argue that animals were simply "Version 1.0, 2.05, and 3.01" of the species experiment. The sobering conclusion to that is that we humans are likely not the end result either. snip And just about every animal has some form of communication, not just dolphins and a few others. Ants communicate with chemicals, bees communicate by 'dancing', dogs communicate by ****ing on trees and smelling each others butts, etc, etc. Rudimentary at best. Nothing as complex as what humans have achieved. Assuming that's correct, are you suggesting that human complexity is what comprises a 'soul'? Not at all. The concept of a soul transcends traditional nuts and bolts science, and bridges such things as philosophy with parapsychology and spirituality, and yes, religion. Some people believe in reincarnation. The idea that our "souls" recycle our bodies and assume physical form here more than once. And some also theorize that these souls could be placed into animals as well. Hence the Hindu tradition of animal worship, the so-called "sacred cow". Before you totally poo-poo such a concept, you should research it a bit. There have been compelling studies of people who, under deep hypnosis, have recounted a past life with remarkable detail, which could not have been obtained through present day observation or research. If nothing else, it leaves one with more questions than answers. But on the other hand, why would anyone think that human behavior is anything more than extentions of natural instinct? Everything we do somehow revolves around basic natural urges, whether it be breathing, sleeping, eating, sex, reproduction, dying, etc. Probably the only two characteristics that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our propensity to destroy ourselves and our ability to show mercy. Boy are you cynically misguided. You think that all that humans do revolves around eating, sleeping and sex? What about those who create? What makes you think that art and music are something other than extentions of instinctual behaviors? Animals attract mates with singing, dancing, showing their plumage, building nests, etc. It's also a method of communication that extends beyond verbal language. So concert musicians, renowned painters and sculptors, and even Martha Stewart are just looking to get laid? Those who philosophize? Ever read "The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam"? No, did you? Those who teach? Procreation -- "It takes a village to raise a child." Hillary Clinton? Please.... There is more to teaching than procreation. Those who excel at physical activity? Demonstrations of physical prowness, rutting, etc. Again, the purpose of such is not necessarily a function of sexual need. Those to seek answers to larger questions? Isn't that the same as philosophy? No, not always. Some are "scientists". Those who achieve greatness in any number of fields? Like politics? Great leaders. But you do seem to have some sort of deep rooted sexual issues. I'd check them out if I were you. Living alone has you fixating on sex. But then again, the former doesn't differentiate us from lemmings, and the latter is more a recognition of the futility of life than it is a divine influence. Either way, man can be just as cruel as nature and frequently proves that to be a fact. So what you are in essence saying is that since we will all eventually die, what's the point of living? No, but it's been suggested by others more than once. People with depressive negative psychological issues. Which brings up another biological point. We know that our lifespan is controlled by our genetics. Who determined what the optimal lifespan for a human should be? So what's the difference between man and animal? Human arrogance in thinking he is something more than just another product of nature. I'd like to think we are the most advanced product of the divine intelligence. Like I said befo You can believe what you want to believe but the facts define reality. I'm still waiting to see your "facts". So far all you have given is counter faith and hypotheses. snip The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. I understand them perfectly. Then you have an understanding that exceeds that of the entire scientific community. I understand that they exist. I do not know their exact definitions. But I don't need to. I just do not accept that complexity can result from randomness. I'm assuming you mean 'order from chaos', but either way you are wrong. Just walk into any jewelry store and look at the diamonds. Which is just as wrong as your "growing crystal" analogy. Each specimen is unique in its virgin state. Jewelers cut and polish to some semblance of uniformity. I don't accept the theory that if you place a group of monkeys in a cage with a bunch of typewriters that they'll eventually write every great piece of literary works. I don't either. Whose theory was that? http://www.angelfire.com/in/hypnoson...e_Monkeys.html There are many others. I'm surprised that in that vast storehouse of knowledge that you claim to posses, that you have not stumbled on this before. I have, I just didn't know who said it. Does it really matter? snip There are still far too many unanswered questions to discount the theory of intelligent design. Discount it? No. But neither does it mean that we should jump to that conclusion because we haven't learned everything we can. I conclude nothing of the sort. That's -exactly- what you claim when you say that God is responsible for any missing evolutionary link. And you ignore the fact that those links are gradually being found. So what? Even if every link is found, that only proves that evolution occurred, but not what drives it. But I have an especially hard time accepting the totally at random theory of evolution, and prefer to believe that evolution was guided by an unseen intelligent force. We may disagree on the exact definition of that intelligence, and without facts, it's pointless to debate it beyond that point other than from a purely philosophical perspective. Great. Maybe now we can get back to the original topic. Like I said, a stalemate. Glad you finally understand. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:47:29 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Dave: "Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to transmit anywhere." That is NOT what I said at all, they should ONLY be able to transmit in the radio spectrum which is theirs--off the top of my head, this would only, very roughly, be about one-half of the full radio spectrum... the other half split up between various other users... and the rest being used by citizens... Forgive me then. I seemed to remember you first saying that ALL the spectrum belonged to the citizens. I'm sorry if I got that wrong. But if all of the spectrum doesn't belong to the citizens, then who does it belong to? ... without it being organized, and the necessary freqs set aside for the various uses... and the ridiculous restrictions... the result may well be--people transmitting all over the spectrum... but that is a rather insane system... I would agree, and it seems that you've modified your original proposal for "radio anarchy" to one of "looser regulation". Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 04:11:08 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:39:37 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: The politics of science is often more important than the science itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get their names in the journals. There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily the result of man's influence over the environment. Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof. No there isn't...... Yes, there is. Ice cores are an excellent record of climatic history, and are good for over 500,000 years. Yes, and that evidence shows the extent of the climatic shifts over that time period. What it does not show is what precipitated those changes, nor can it predict the additional effects of man's influence over the environment. How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts. Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset. Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist. I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just going to "accept" that I exist and not ponder why. What part of existentialism dictates that one must must not "ponder" their own existence? Existentialism is more concerned with "how", rather than "why". Well that also depends on which purveyor of modern existentialism you tend to follow. Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:25:50 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:38:40 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even though most have been around since this country was founded. So has crime. What is wrong with seeking to remove that of which the law clearly defines? Nothing, if that's indeed the case. You just said it was. You are second guessing only yourself. The "law" has been defined in regard to religious influences, since the inception of this country. It was not a problem in 1805, 1905, and 1955, so it should not be a problem in 2005. Only to those who are trapped in the past and who are afraid of and reject change and progress. But those religious influences are adorned all over our government buildings and in our government business. So are other religious symbols besides Christianity. Why is it only now do certain people find exception to it? You would have to ask one. My guess would be a certain faction is trying to cram their religious beliefs down otehr's throats. _ You are one of the most vocal in this group to redundantly invoke that just because something is practiced far and wide doesn't make it legal or right,,,,but of course, it does when you agree with it. In the case of religious influences in this country, the majority have accepted and endorsed it since the beginning. It's only now that a small, but vocal MINORITY that has a problem with it. You still demonstrate hypocrisy here,,.the reason you set forth for justifying it, valid to only yourself. When it's not illegal, I agree with it. Except when the law doesn't agree with your point of view or actions. You claim ignorance of the law is no excuse, but you arrogantly claim you break the law intentionally (holding up traffic in the passing lane, paralelling the car in the right lane) in order to enforce another law. Pa law states the left lane is for passing only. You're an uninformed (regarding the law in your own state) hypocrite. The fact is that despite recent misinterpretations of the establishment clause in the constitution by left wing zealots, we have had religious influences in our government from the very beginning. That's rich..and wrong. Once again I ask you to explain how anything these "left wingers" say or do or interpret can matter at all regarding this issue while the republicans control the house and senate. No, it's not. You'd either have to be blind or hopelessly biased not to see it. Well, then feel free to ahead and explain away how these "left winger misinterpretations" affect religious laws when the republicans are the only party in charge of both the senate and the house....ie: the country. In theory, it should mean nothing. But you know those obstructionist democrats trying to use a filibuster to leverage their minority into a controlling influence. That's one biased opinion. The other side of the coin you seek to ignore is that the fillibuster is the last legal refuge to place an end to the republicans seeking to end and change laws that would prevent a one party rule...theirs. Nevertheless, the misinterpretation has been all yours even though Frank neatly wrapped it all up and presented you with the facts clearly indicating congress shall keep the clause of separation of church and state intact. It was never there in the first place. Denial is your best trait.,,but denial when presented proof is learned ignorance. At least not to the degree that the zealots are calling for now. The only zealots that mean anything are the ones in charge...repubs. =A0=A0Because you agree with the religious zealots and have on many occasion admitted that your moral views are to be fostered upon others and if they do not subscribe to your radical positions and admitted (on many occasion) socialistic tendencies, you mistakenly hold them as an enemy of yourself, seeking to take away that of which you believe. I and many others who are currently in the majority. You know, the ones who reelected G.W. Bush. The majority didn't vote, David. Someone with your caliber of education should know better, but then again, youare also of the rabid pack who continue to erroneously claim Bush had a mandate....if he did, it was with Jeff Gannon. I would argue that it was those influences which made this country one of strong moral and ethical principles. In one sentence you claim the moral and ethical principles of this country have degraded terribly and even said society was reflected on the air. Now you say the country is once again of strong moral fiber and ethical principle. No, I said that this country was FOUNDED on strong moral and ethical principles. No,,you said,,,"Which made this country one of strong moral fiber". You should learn to read for content, before making another of your erroneous conclusions. You flip flop more than Bush. No, you misinterpret and assume such as a result of your misinterpretations. The only misinterpretation here, is the initial impression I had of you and your education. I thought you were reasonably schooled at one point, until the several weeks, between your gaffes and unlearned comments regrading the law of your own state and the glaring holes in your civics and history knowledge, law knowledge, and FCC knowledge. _ I wouldn't go so far as to put it blatantly in those terms, but I do believe taking God and physical punishment out of the schools was a serious mistake. Then you and I do share some agreement in this area. But the reason why God was taken out of public schools was a direct result of anti-religious zealots trying to leverage an extreme interpretation of "separation of church and state" to accomplish this "unfortunate" feat. I disagree. One doesn't need be anti-religious in order to disagree with Christian dogma being displayed in public areas. This is your own short sightedness. There was once a day when democrats and republicans practiced a little thing called compromise. There was also a day when the working guys of each party could think for themselves instead of widely swallowing their party line rhetoric and blaming those who aren't anywhere near leadership positions in this country for all the woes and incompetence of your own party. Such as? Your entire religious argument regarding the left. That is the most pedestrian act you have attempted to date. Scary thing is, you appear to actually believe yourself when you post such drivel. You simply can not handle the responsibility of the buck stopping with the leader you selected. What failures can be blamed on our leader? Lately? Dharfur. N Korea. Providing adequate armor to the troops that would save lives. Balancing the budget...just for an immediate start. _ In other words, you seek to blame others when responsibility for your leader's action must be taken. .Well, it might be nice to blame Bush for the failure of Social Security, but the democrats will not even allow his plan to come to a full vote, There is no failure of SS, unless Bush is permitted to monkey with it. while offering nothing of their own to counter it. Lockbox. They'd rather just pretend that there's no problem (Even though prominent leaders of their own party were running around like chicken little about SS failing when Clinton was in office). Blaming another political party for the last four and a half years of confirmed failures illustrate you really have too great a deal to learn in order to effectively discuss the political process. Your opinion notwithstanding, My "opinion" that blaming the left for Bush failures illustrates you really have a great deal to learn is no opinion, but fact. there is not one thing you can definitively pin on Bush as a "failure". See above. On the other hand, for the last 4 years, the democratic party has become the party of hatred and obstruction. Demos have nothing to do with it. An attempt to cloud the topic that you keep failing with by invoking the left when faced with Bush failures is useless. - If it looks smells or tastes like it came from a republican, their first instinct is to oppose it. You continue to invoke demos for all the republican failures. Classic. Like I said before, before the extreme polarization of the political parties in Washington, you could actually get things done with a little compromise. And like I said, before your elected president successfully redefined and mis-defined the term "liberal" to mean anyone who dares oppose him, many repubs actually thought for themselves instead of buying into failed party rhetoric from which most intelligent and true GOP'er have distanced themselves. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:58:08 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:34:14 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: If the FCC chose to do so, freebanders can be charged criminally. The fact that they have not chosen to do any more than sporadic citations, does not diminish the fact that they could if they chose to. Whoaaa.....you are invoking what does not take place, only what you pontificate can take place. Reality is,,it doesn't take place. End of story. Reality is that it DOES take place. Only in very rare situations. Which, I'm sure you consider the same as never doing it. Police do not usually cite people for Jaywalking, but they could at any time. Also reality,,but, stay relevant to reality and not what "may" happen. Dreaming is nice, but not reality. As long as the law is on the books, you are required to follow it. Although there really are some silly laws that need to be done away with. Once that happens, then it's a different story. The point is that just because a law is not actively enforced does not mean that it's ok to break it. It does in many cases where the law is not enforced. Blue laws are but a single example,,,an example you felt so valid, you snipped it. So FCC rules are a "blue law" to you? But the point is that nothing will happen if you are never caught. But the fact that you are not likely to get caught does not diminish the illegality No one ever said it did. **and societal irresponsibility of engaging in the acts. * In order for you to claim such a "societal irresponsibility" exists, there first must exist a "societal responsibility" somehwere other than your mind regarding such (cb radio)....can you cite it? Societal responsibility goes far beyond CB radio. It goes hand in hand with morality, consideration, and just plain old fashioned good manners. Try again.....in regards to cb radio, please cite this non-existent "societal responsibility" concept that has you confounded. It's hard to quantify an abstract concept. But if you look real hard you can find out about such things as civic and societal responsibility, with regard to many aspect of our lives. These things are generic in how we live in a society. There needs not be one "special" to CB radio. Good manners and respect is proper in all that we do. Not everything in life is codified, especially morality. Then you have no right to hold others to your view of what is and isn't acceptable, despite your claims to the contrary. Well, if you want to lead the charge for immorality, then be my guest. But don't be surprised that those of us who still harbor some sense of morality, do what we can to stop you. If you need a specific guide on how to be a responsible citizen and a good neighbor, you can start with Miss Manners and work your way up from there. And since you admittedly can not comprehend why one jamming repeater frequencies can present a safety hazard, you should begin your radio education as relates to hammie radio, anew. Jamming a repeater which spends 98% of it's time as a home for hams to chew the fat on, is hardly a safety hazard. I agree that jamming a repeater is improper behavior, just like jamming CB channels with high power and on unauthorized channels. But there's no "safety hazard" there nay more than on any given CB channel. Please cite these criminal penalties referring the freeband or simple dx. Please refer to the communications act of 1934 and related parts. I went to the source. I see no criminal charges, merely civil charges. Can you cite this exception of which you speak? Start with Title IV, section 401 and work your way from there. Waffling will not distance yourself from your incorrect claim, David. I have yet to find a criminal charge for simple dxing. It does not exist. You keep playing word games, oh purveyor of waffling. The charge is not "simple DX". The charge is transmitting on unauthorized frequencies. There is a mitigating difference between "can't" and "won't". Even so...keeping with your claim,,..how is it you confront all freebanders and lawbreakers regarding cb and freebanding? It's not my job to "confront" anyone. However I do present my opinion. *I have, on occasion, prevented speeding by paralleling someone in the right lane holding the legal speed limit. A massive ticket here in Florida, AND in Pa from what I read. Based on what charge? Left lane is for passing only. Again you don;t know the laws of your own state. Then perhaps you can tell me how someone can legally pass a car in the right lane that's already at the posted speed limit? .except when you invoked the possibilities of cbers running huge power interfering with emergency communications in a long ago conversation. Of course, it isno linger irrelevant when you invoke such. Which happens. Speculation is acceptable only when invoked by yourself to suppport your hypocrisy. Nothing I have said is hypocritical. However you may wish to reexamine the context of which you pull your information before making invalid comparisons. Since Frank taught you the proper definition of "analogy", it really doesn't matter. You two couldn't teach someone to find their rear ends with both hands. Right,,,it means not being used.To use your analogy regarding physical property,,,,if a lot or property is abandoned, and one tends the ground, takes care of it, and pays the tax on it for x amount of years, the often land becomes the property of the caretaker who has been taking care of it and paying the taxes. Squatters rights. And interesting angle. And a valid one. And for it to apply, then you would have to concede that radio spectrum is treated in the same way as "real" property. It doesn't apply to the radoio spectrum, which is what you are being properly instructed upon. Then why did YOU bring it up? *I wonder if someone has tried that tactic on the FCC in regard to the freeband area of 11 meters. The principle is similar. Only to your misguided education or beliefs or whatever is responsible for you not grasping such a concept. It has not been tried with the FCC because even the lowly cbers seem to comprehend the spectrum is 1) not owned by the FCC and 2) not tangible property. Then the concept of squatter's rights does not apply to radio spectrum. Only you said it did. YOU brought it up. So I'm curious why you brought it up in that context. To make you understand your error. I made no error. There are many abandoned buildings around. But you are still not allowed to trespass there. Yet, many people use these abandon buildings on a regular basis with immunity. Bums,,,vagrants, crackheads, ..... Freebanders. I see the similarities. You really have a low opinion of yourself, Dave. No, not me, only scofflaws. I always said you had a serious ego and self-esteem problem. The mere admittance that you held yourself in such company confirms such. That was then, this is now. No matter. I could say my esteem is that of which my character was never held in the company of whcih you refer yourself, past or present. You could say that the moon is made of green cheese for all the difference it would make. Everyone can repent, even you. Repent? To who? ANd for what? Is it a sin to talk on the freeband? Dave, you're losing nd, here. You can correct yourself from your bad habits. It's not too late to atone for the error of your ways. See above for examples of a form of civil disobedience.. Civil disobedience is not a catch-all concept for scofflaws to use as an excuse to ignore laws that they, as individuals, have some deep rooted psychological issue with. Then again, some people would rather just operate illegally rather than going through the trouble to have an perceived unjust rule changed. Those people are simply weak. Like yourself,,,who is reactive but never proactive. Great analogy, I am not the one with the problem. I once wanted more bandwidth, I earned a ham license. No more problem. The only thing you have in your favor is that the FCC is not motivated enough to do much about it. You have nothing in your favor. It's all blatant hypocrisy. What have I said, that could be considered hypocritical? too many things to list, but many regs have illustrated it for you,,,it;s not their fault you can;t comprehend it. Yet you cannot list them. Another excuse. You and Frank are both full of lame excuses these days. You like to recklessly throw around the word "hypocritical", yet I am seriously beginning to believe that you have no idea what it truly means. Is operation on the freeband not illegal? Should the law not be respected? How many more excuses are you going to invent to hide, obfuscate, justify, or otherwise downplay the fact that you willingly ignore a federal law? It really galls you that you were never given any reasons, let alone conjured excuses of which onlu you hallucinate. I'll take that as another excuse, and a concession that you cannot counter the points that I presented. *It's not that it's any less illegal, it's only that they don't care enough. Because it is rightly a non-issue to the majority, Of which you have absolutely no idea who they are, or how they feel. of which you clearly do not belong, leading to the fact that you are a minority wishing to dictate your beliefs to the masses. Doesn't work that way. Sort of like the democratic party trying to subvert the constitution by an abusive application of a filibuster to block judicial nominees...... You said you were behind all legal activities. You're a hypocrite. Fillibusters are legal. Not in the manner in which they've been used as of late. Note another quick, reckless, and incorrect application of the word "hypocrite" Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
|
On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:56:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip See, this is what's so puzzling about you Frank. Once in a while you unload with a brilliant piece of perspective, which is at total odds with your status in life. You're one hell of an underachiever. Dr. Kramer probably wouldn't agree. Do you want the book or not? Frank, I can get as much information as I need right from the internet. It's a lot better than finding places to keep all those books. Hence the source of your ingnorance and the reason you find me to be so "puzzling". But you go right ahead and limit yourself to the internet for your sole source of information -- let me know when you find the winding specifications for an Ajax M-2-145T, or the firearm most preferred by Deep-River Jim, or why Bessie slashed up her own portrait. Find a link that explains why you can see the Douglas Firs towering above you in the middle of the woods on a pitch-black and starless night. Download the feelings of watching Israeli officers picking off Palistinian schoolkids running out of a burning building like they were ducks in a shooting gallery. I'm sure you can find a site that has the cyber-smell file of a Northwest sawmill. And I'm sure there's some adapter you can plug into the USB port that will let you enjoy the unmatched hospitality (and world-class pastries) offered by a family of Norwegians when all you did was ask to fill up your water can. The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature, or direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you need from your computer. You are a fool, Dave. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com