"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

"Thomas Borchert" wrote
DVaridel,
Now, what sort of plane do you fly?

Socata TB-10 Tobago. Wider cabin than a Bo, but sadly, neither the
engine power nor the speed.

Cool - a couple of aero clubs in Sydney stocked up on the "TB" series in the
90's, but I haven't seen them down here in Melbourne.

Please pardon my ignorance (being new around here) but I'm unfamiliar with
"Bo". Oh, and while I'm 'fessing up, I've assumed "OP" (separate threads)
is Other Pilot?


David

--
There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot.

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in
:



"The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh

http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-
Directions/dp/01951
17980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a

I still like "A Brief History of Time", but Hawking. I don't agree
with
much of it, but it is interesting reading nonetheless.


Oh you should write to him and point out his errors then.

You guys are all wrong. Douglass Addams hit it right with "The
Restaurant at the End of the Universe".


Well, Hawkings quoted Adams fairly often so he might even agree with you.

Be sure to include your views on guns. Perhaps that will help him see
the error of his ways.

Every one that thinks like I do should be able to own as many as they
want. Take 'em away from every one else. Same for universal govt and
religion. :-))


And the vote.


Bertie

Recently, Jim Logajan posted:

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-01-12, Jim Logajan wrote:
IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the
concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would
either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of
some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support
"before" and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would
then beg the question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time".

_A Brief History of Time_ suggests otherwise, in chapter 9.

I've never read that book, but here is a lecture of his that deals
directly with the question:

"The Beginning of Time"
http://www.hawking.org.uk/pdf/bot.pdf

As I (mis?)understand it, it postulates what I would label a
meta-time (in this case Hawking labels it "imaginary time") that is
basically a closed curve onto which "real time" is mapped such that
"real time" has a "beginning" and "ending" points on the imaginary
time and space surface.

By the way, the book by Huw Price that I mention discusses Hawking's
views in "Brief History" and Price doesn't agree with Hawking. It
appears that Hawking has changed his view of "time" on at least one
occasion.

I think that at this point, the thread is going astray of the notion that
science is somehow concerned with questions about these issues; these are
philosophical matters that sometimes present an opportunity to be tested
by science. However, having read "A Brief History of Time", I'd point out
that Hawking presents more than one scenario regarding the linearity of
time and paradigms for a "beginning" and "end", and it seems to me that
this is an untestable question at this point in time.

Another book that covers some of these issues is John D. Barrow's "The
Book of Nothing", which I found to be quite enlightening about nothing.
;-) A very worthwhile read for those interested in grasping such
questions as these or even just gaining knowledge about the origins of
math and how the concept of the zero (and lack thereof) shaped human
culture and development.

To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our
society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the
current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any
candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs (such
as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this
country around is simply lying to us.

Neil

DVaridel,

Please pardon my ignorance (being new around here) but I'm unfamiliar with
"Bo". Oh, and while I'm 'fessing up, I've assumed "OP" (separate threads)
is Other Pilot?


Bo is short for the Beechcraft Bonanza. OP is usenet speak for "original
poster".

There are several TB owners from Australia at www.socata.org, some from
Melbourne, IIRC (if I recall correctly).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Recently, dVaridel posted:

"Thomas Borchert" wrote
Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make
up this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go
and kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name
of that guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic,
political or otherwise.

This is an inflammatory statement that does not reflect the views of
Creationists, however, debates on the subject normally lower to this
level of name calling very quickly.

As it does reflect the behaviours of Creationists, Christian and
otherwise, if it doesn't reflect the views of that population it only
raises questions about their hypocrasy.

Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep
trying to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a
good thing, too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not
only live with, but one we wholeheartedly embrace.

If only all non-Creationists stated it this way. Most try to prove
that they have "The Answer" (tm).

According to whom, Creationists? Scientists make no such claim.

Now, what sort of plane do you fly? I'm still stuck in a Warrior but
the school has installed an autopilot so I get to do a little
sight-seeing!

I happen to like Warriors, as I'm not in much of a hurry. Our club is
acquiring a couple of Cirrus SR-22s, and I'm not all that interested in
them. We also have a few (Bo)nanzas (to answer another poster's question
about "Bo"), and I have yet to go up in those either.

Neil

Recently, Matt Whiting posted:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
DVaridel,

Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created
everything

Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded

Hmmmmm


Here's the answer I should have given in the first place:

Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make
up this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go
and kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name
of that guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic,
political or otherwise.

Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep
trying to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a
good thing, too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not
only live with, but one we wholeheartedly embrace. No one needs to
get hurt in this process.

Hmmmm


Yes, Hmmm. Who created most of the nastiest weapons known to man...
Hint, it wasn't creationists.

Hmmm. Who used them on people? Hint... it wasn't the scientists. Some of
those on the Manhattan project suggested demonstrating the power of the
weapons in a non-lethal way, and others suggested that the science behind
them should be openly distributed in order to reduce the temptation to use
them. We know how that turned out.

Just because someting *can* be done does not mean that it must be.

Neil

Recently, dVaridel posted:

In the last few years I've read that there was stuff that had done
nothing forever then it exploded. It is expected to slow and then
shrink back to a tight lump of stuff.

Close?

No, not really.

Neil

To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our
society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the
current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any
candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs (such
as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this
country around is simply lying to us.

Well put.

Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential candidates
who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable political
platform. My preliminary research shows that this candidate does not yet
exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:E%oij.33853$Ux2.25986@attbi_s22:

To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support
our society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
science and religion will only do further harm to this country than
the current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done.
Any candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific
beliefs (such as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the
downward trend in this country around is simply lying to us.

Well put.

Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential
candidates who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable
political platform. My preliminary research shows that this candidate
does not yet exist.

Shouldn't you be scrubbing some toilets?


Bertie

Jim Logajan wrote:

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Bertie,

but anyone who believes the set of
fairytales known as the bible is welcome to it.


Actually, no, I don't think so.

Ahh, your religion is restricting what others can do. Nice.

Too much harm has been done by those
who do. The track record is way down in the negatives on terms of
benefits for society.

What is your objective score for all of the postives in addition to the
negatives, Tom?



And atheists have been all sweetness and light.

Shucks no - sometimes we go for a Guiness.

How many people did Stalin have killed?

Was somebody counting? Besides, did he have them killed because of their
religous beliefs or because they were a threat to his power?

Oh my Jim, recent history is so easily forgotten or ignored by some. Here is a
little refresher on Joe Stalin:
Approximately 20 million people were killed by Stalin's reegime, including up
to 14.5 million starved to death for political reasons. At least 1 million were
executed for political "offences." At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled
or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to
the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the number
of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'.

What a gentleman, thank goodness he was athiest. Imagine how many people he
could have killed (and so much worse!!) had he found a religion? Nice
diversion attempt with the motives for his unthinkable horror, but the
discussion was about making the bible unwelcome, perhaps with the threat of
law, because of all the "negatives." But instead proved the point you appear to
be against. Stopping religion doesn't stop bad people. In fact, attempting to
stop religion would put you in fundamental agreement with Matthew Murray, who
in December 2007 started shooting in a Denver church, slaughtering people in
the name of athiesm because he proclaimed to hate
religion.
tinyurl.com/282qtx




Don't blame on God or even the belief in God what can easily be
explained by the nature of man.

Well that begs the question whether the Bible is a work of God or a work of
men.

"Begs the question??" How so?