The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 09:05 On Feb 28, 1:42 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 26, 1:40 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > >>> Do the Pacific states get the same coverage we do? > > >> Ignoring the various pay, satellite, and cable channels, there > >> are about twelve free-to-air locally broadcast channels. > >> One of the free-to-air channels (Prime) broadcasts Winter > >> Olympics every day nonstop from 5:30am to 6:30pm. Looking > >> at today's Friday schedule, apart from the half-hour WO news > >> at 5:30am and Cross Country skiing at 10:30-11:30am all the > >> events are live. > > >> If by "same coverage" you mean "identical programming" then > >> the answer is no. All commentators are either New Zealanders > >> or people who are aware of commenting for the downunder > >> or specifically kiwi audience. Now and then they interrupt > >> the program to switch to another competition to show > >> a kiwi athlete, who would we normally not see, perform > >> their shtick and then switch back. > > > Eh? You take "Pacific states" -- in the context of time zones -- to > > include New Zealand?? > > Whoops, sorry, I didn't realise that by "Pacific states" you meant > "US Pacific states". We very, very, very rarely use "state" to mean 'independent nation'.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 09:10 On Feb 28, 2:20 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:30:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in > <news:d71436df-5a65-4a7a-9949-8653dd7bf080(a)f35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> > in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in > >> <news:02dc31c7-bbee-4dd6-8c8f-f915da3acdab(a)g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> > >> in > >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >>> On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> [...] > >>>> Until you offer a definition of "Christian" with an > >>>> explanation and evidence as to why it's superior to > >>>> those generally accepted by lexicographers, there's not > >>>> really much left to discuss.- > >>> Again I point out, as a linguist, that lexicographers have > >>> no special handle on truth, especially as concerns > >>> technical terminology. > >> But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a > >> technical term. > > When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what > > constitutes a Christian, it certainly is. > > It never does. Individual brands of Christianity can have > official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, but > since those definitions don't all agree, the notion that > Christians in general have an official definition of what > constitutes a Christian is patently absurd. Where did I say "Christians in general"? Why is there an epidemic of people (all of whom appear to be mathematically oriented, incidentally) assuming that unquantified nouns have only universal reference, as opposed to the normal interpretation that the omitted quantifier is an existential?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 09:13 On Feb 28, 5:49 am, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in > >> <news:02dc31c7-bbee-4dd6-8c8f-f915da3acdab(a)g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> > >> in > >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > >>> On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> [...] > > >>>> Until you offer a definition of "Christian" with an > >>>> explanation and evidence as to why it's superior to > >>>> those generally accepted by lexicographers, there's not > >>>> really much left to discuss.- > >>> Again I point out, as a linguist, that lexicographers have > >>> no special handle on truth, especially as concerns > >>> technical terminology. > >> But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a > >> technical term. > > > When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes > > a Christian, it certainly is. > > Some Christians take the view that the final determination of whether > someone is or is not a Christian will take place at some later date, > when the sheep are separated from the goats by Christ Himself. > Therefore, any official definitions in the here and now are of > distinctly secondary importance. That's not about whether individuals are Christians, but about whether individuals are granted salvation. There are indeed some bigots who insist that no one who isn't a "Bible-believing Christian" can do so, but that assertion is not consistent with Scripture. > I know, I know, a lot of others can't let go of the desire to know Right > Now, and particularly want to know whether or not that really irritating > neighbour is In or Out. And some people who aren't Christians by any > definition of the word like to know for some reason or other, probably > ranging from simple curiosity to the wish to identify a group to study > or poll, who is and is not Christian.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 09:15 On Feb 28, 2:57 am, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 3:48 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 9:57 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 2:29 am, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 27, 12:20 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 26, 9:04 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". > > > > > > > Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene > > > > > > Creed. > > > > > > That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to > > > > > It may be a different "statement," but it conveys the obvious intent > > > > of the original statement. > > > > No, it conveys a different intent, which is obvious if you reread your > > > original question: "Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the > > > Nicene Creed? (With or without the _filioque_.)" That's clearly > > > Since it's my question, I think I am entitled to state what its intent > > was. > > Whatever you might have meant, your words didn't convey it. With an > ambiguous statement, it's certainly reasonable to admit that you were > wrong and revise your statement--I've certainly made ill-formed > statements in this thread and others, and altered them. > > In this case, though, it's pretty obvious from the wording what you > meant by the original question, and if you're now asserting that you > didn't mean to ask whether all Christians actually use some real > wording of the Nicene Creed then I absolutely believe you're lying. I > have no further interest in continuing this thread if you're going to > insist otherwise (and several other people in this thread also took > your words to mean what they meant to me, so I don't feel that's an > idiosyncrasy of mine). See recent posting on mathematicians' restrictive interpretation of unexpressed quantifiers in English. > > (I gather, from the sources you cite, that you are some sort of > > conservative Catholic, the type that in Chicago flocked to the one > > parish in the city that had dispensation from Rome to say Mass in > > Latin, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't know anything about > > such questions.) > > Have fun with that (Fwiw, I'm a liberal atheist).- Then why on earth are you not familiar with recent (i.e., less than a century and a half old) scholarship on topics on which you pontificate?
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 28 Feb 2010 11:49
"Skitt" <skitt99(a)comcast.net> writes: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> "Skitt" wrote: >>> It made our helpers happy, and no believers were harmed in the >>> process. Why, I even joined the YMCA, as it was our official >>> sponsor. The YMCA had great pool tables and a table tennis >>> facility, so all was not lost. >> >> I don't think you have to be Christian (or Young) to use the YMCA ... > > Not to use, but there was some sort of commitment that had to be > expressed to join the Y. If so, they changed their policy by the time I started taking swimming lessons there in the '60s. My family were members, but we wouldn't have made any statement that expressed an affiliation with Christianity. Or perhaps it varied by Y. >> you certainly don't have to be Jewish (or male) to use the YMHA; >> the 92nd St. Y is one of New York City's great cultural >> institutions. (They don't seem to use the MHA in their name any >> more.) Their web pages still say � 2010 92nd Street Young Men's and Young Women's Hebrew Association but I suspect that the "Hebrew" euphemism (from latter half of the nineteenth century) is considered just too archaic. Outside of New York, most became "Jewish Community Centers" (JCCs or J's) in, I believe, the '20s. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sometimes I think the surest sign 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that intelligent life exists Palo Alto, CA 94304 |elsewhere in the universe is that |none of it has tried to contact us. kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |