The perpetual calendar
in [Math]
|
Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Feb 2010 09:30 sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Feb 24, 7:54 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> On Feb 23, 6:19 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>> Dunno about the rest of the world, but in the US court-ordered busing >>>> has most kids riding the bus to school anyway >>> Court-ordered busing never affected a substantial fraction of US >>> school children (it peaked at below 5%, IIRC) and since 1980 or so has >>> been very limited. Post-2000, it's headed toward extinction. >> Why are you assuming that kids don't use busses? > > I'm not assuming that. I've re-read the above to figure out why you'd > think that, but I'm stumped. Oh, I read "it's" as busing; you meant the forced changes in which schools kids attended. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Feb 2010 09:40 Bob Myers wrote: > Andrew Usher wrote: > > >> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. > > Oh, absolutely. Why, I see people in the stores every day, > counting out their money or the number of items they're > going to purchase, and saying to themselves "Zero, one, two..." > > ;-) Especially when the clerk counts change. I'm sure Usher wouldn't object when he gets a dollar short. /BAH
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 25 Feb 2010 10:33 "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > On Feb 24, 3:43�pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> > On Feb 24, 10:04 am, Evan Kirshenbaum >> > <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> What's "reportage" is the "I've heard it commented". If Dave, >> >> living in Arizona, has heard it told about Indians, then that's >> >> the tale he's reporting having heard. �And the choice of >> >> ethnicity is an interesting part of the tale, giving insight >> >> into the attitudes of those who tell it (as distinct from those >> >> who merely report having heard it). >> > So ... that Dave has a prejudice concerning American Indians is >> > something he thought we all should know? >> >> No. �It's an asinine unjustified inference on your part. > > So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes > doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? > > Or is it that you have no problem with mocking groups? > > Or with negative attitude toward groups? Or is it that you can tell the difference between telling a joke and reporting having heard a joke and that you can recognize that by phrasing your reporting that way the reporter implicitly distances himself from the implication that he agrees with the way it's told? -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take |something and not pay for it. kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Feb 2010 10:35 On Feb 25, 10:20 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > On Feb 24, 5:04 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > I would like to know > what definition you would use for determining whether a group (however > heretical) was, in fact, a (heretical) Christian group. "Heretical" _means_ they're not part of the fold. You can hope and pray that they renounce their heresy, but until they do, they're out. > > The wannabes don't get to define who belongs to the club. The > > gatekeepers do. > > If it's an appeal to authority, then I presume your original question > was begged. If the "gatekeepers" assert that the Nicene Creed is > part of being Christian, then no Christian groups fail to use it by > definition. That would seem to be the case. (And there's a difference between regularly reciting a creed, and accepting it as part of doctrine. You'd be hard pressed to find a copy of the Athanasian Creed -- at least, before internet days -- yet it sets forth the basics of, at least, Western Christianity.) > >> > And your Mr. Lee defines himself _out_ of Christianity by the "broader > >> > meaning." > > >> How so? I can see that they've defined themselves out of orthodox > >> Christianity by accepting a non-canonical book, but I don't know what > >> definition of "Christianity" you're using that rules out those > >> following additional books about Jesus. Unless, of course, your > >> definition includes necessarily following things like the Nicene > >> Creed, but clearly that couldn't be your definition or you wouldn't > >> have asked if there were Christian churches that didn't. > > > The various canons of Scripture (which differ slightly around the > > edges) accepted by the various brands of Christianity were finalized > > 1700 or more years ago. No option exists within Christianity for > > adding to that canon. > > I had thought that those who accept other books (at least other > pre-existing books) were considered to be heretical Christians rather > than non-Christians. > > > Especially forgeries claimed to be found on golden plates and > > translated by angels. Into a pastiche of centuries-old diction. > > Or, presumably, if an archaeological site uncovered a new letter, > fully compatible with the current canon, determined by Christian > authorities to have been written by St. Paul. Any church which added > it to their canon would becom non-Christian by your argument. Many similar documents have been discovered in recent decades, and no Christian church has even _considered_ adding them to the canon.
From: Brian M. Scott on 25 Feb 2010 11:37
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:18:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in <news:17448f65-e82a-4b67-b554-3896d58f496c(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Feb 24, 3:43�pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>> On Feb 24, 10:04 am, Evan Kirshenbaum >>> <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> [...] >>>> What's "reportage" is the "I've heard it commented". >>>> If Dave, living in Arizona, has heard it told about >>>> Indians, then that's the tale he's reporting having >>>> heard. �And the choice of ethnicity is an interesting >>>> part of the tale, giving insight into the attitudes of >>>> those who tell it (as distinct from those who merely >>>> report having heard it). >>> So ... that Dave has a prejudice concerning American >>> Indians is something he thought we all should know? >> No. �It's an asinine unjustified inference on your part. > So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes > doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? In fact it sometimes does not. However, the question is irrelevant: see Evan's response. > Or is it that you have no problem with mocking groups? > Or with negative attitude toward groups? You're in a very poor position to cast those stones. |