xkcd today- lovely.
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Unsupported Firefox...
Next: It's here (at last)
From: D.M. Procida on 28 May 2010 04:26 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > As far as I can tell, all serious remarks on `human nature' are cobblers > and are made purely to disguise lazy thinking (and the non-serious ones > aren't serious so can be ignored for these purposes). What would you propose in its place? There appear to be some universally or nearly-universally shared human characteristics. I think that 'human nature' is as good a way of describing these as any other. Daniele
From: Pd on 28 May 2010 04:56 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > As far as I can tell, all serious remarks on `human nature' are cobblers > > and are made purely to disguise lazy thinking (and the non-serious ones > > aren't serious so can be ignored for these purposes). > > What would you propose in its place? > > There appear to be some universally or nearly-universally shared human > characteristics. I think that 'human nature' is as good a way of > describing these as any other. Sometimes it helps to define things by what they're not, so it could be said that 'human nature' is *not* 'slug nature' or 'eucalyptus nature' or 'exoplanet nature', amongst many other natures it isn't. In that sense, it is far more human nature than any other nature to be good at assimilating the content of exhaustive technical documents. -- Pd
From: Peter Ceresole on 28 May 2010 05:27 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > In that sense, it is far more human nature than any other nature to be > good at assimilating the content of exhaustive technical documents. But not the nature of all humans? -- Peter
From: Leave me alone on 28 May 2010 18:35 In article <1r7esb73jjcxn.1v4mvhrxmk7v8.dlg(a)40tude.net>, the_whinger_nation <whiner(a)whingenet.net> wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:23:18 +0100, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > > Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > > [snip unimaginative low-grade vicious personal abuse coupled with > > despicablly snide put-downs] > > > > Tim, tell me, in what way did you make the world better by succumbing to > > your morbid obsession with me, and so failing to stop yourself posting a > > gratuitous insult at me? > > > > You've done nothing but sneer at me and belittle me in your recent post, > > which is of course unwelcome behaviour in what's supposed to be a > > technical newsgroup. > > > > You need to understand the reasons for you behaving in that > > inappropriate fashion: you are ill, and you need help overcoming this > > morbid obsession. > > > > You should seek help to help you understand your own illness so you can > > learn how to stop yourself behaving like that in future. > > > > I think that everyone here is sick to death of your mental health > > problems which mean you can't help hurling personal abuse at me - but > > that is behaviour which is not welcome in what is supposed to be a > > purely technical newsgroup. > > > > Take my advice: see your doctor. At least get some pills to calm you > > down: you need /something/ to help you sort out your deranged mind. > > > > Rowland. > > Why don't you put him in your imaginary killfile? Then you could post > imaginary replies to his killfilled messages. It would serve him right. Just imagine how Rowland would react if Tim Streater turned out to be a woman, he wouldn't get off so lightly then.
From: Leave me alone on 28 May 2010 18:37
In article <1jj636a.1jd1j02gloaoN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > Rowland. Stop littering this group wiyh your off-topic posts, this is a technical group and as such your nasty posts are not welcome, everyone hates you for them, go away and get medical help, we will then welcome you back. |