Happy Easter!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Warren Oates on 5 Apr 2010 17:18 In article <C7DFC567.58126%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > The folks who regularly play the Lottery use similar reasoning: "Since > 'someone' has to win, why not buy a ticket?" But that's sort of true. Probability suggests that for every 14 million (say) tickets sold, one will be a winner; it could just as easily be mine as some bozo's in Port Huron. -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Sherm Pendley on 5 Apr 2010 17:30 Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> writes: > In article <m24ojpbqqh.fsf(a)shermpendley.com>, > Sherm Pendley <spamtrap(a)shermpendley.com> wrote: > >> > For all practical purposes, the difference here between fact and >> > belief is moot. >> >> That difference is *precisely* what I'm talking about. What Ian happens >> to believe, and whether or not I agree with it, is immaterial. I'm >> simply arguing against the use of the word "fact" to describe something >> that has not been proven one way or another. > > Ok, then, you're being a pedant. Yes, certainly. I believe I have good reason to be pedantic about this particular issue though. If people better understood the difference between "I don't share your belief" and "I know you're incorrect about the facts," I think the world would be a better, saner place. sherm--
From: Ian Gregory on 5 Apr 2010 17:31 On 2010-04-05, Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > Do you also believe in angels? Only Kelly, Jill and Sabrina. Kris was clearly fictional. Ian -- Ian Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/
From: Mike Rosenberg on 5 Apr 2010 17:35 Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > That difference is *precisely* what I'm talking about. What Ian happens > > to believe, and whether or not I agree with it, is immaterial. I'm > > simply arguing against the use of the word "fact" to describe something > > that has not been proven one way or another. > > Ok, then, you're being a pedant. And this is unusual for Usenet how exactly? ;-) -- My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_9pudbFisE> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
From: Mike Rosenberg on 5 Apr 2010 17:35
Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote: > "Occam's Razor" was invented by a human being and, hence, strictly speaking > is a prima facie principle. Yes, but you have to keep in mind that, without human beings there would be no... well, no human beings. Never mind. -- My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_9pudbFisE> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> |