xkcd today- lovely.
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Unsupported Firefox...
Next: It's here (at last)
From: Peter Ceresole on 5 Jun 2010 06:18 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > You're guilty. > > You're not fit to judge. Please, Jim. Rowland is mad, and horribly sad. Don't respond. -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Jun 2010 06:34 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > > > You're guilty. > > > > You're not fit to judge. > > Please, Jim. > > Rowland is mad, and horribly sad. Don't respond. Please, everyone, pay no attention to Peter, he's a silly old fool, getting on for senile, and he just can't stop himself bitching like this. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: James Jolley on 5 Jun 2010 07:25 On 2010-06-05 10:11:56 +0100, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >>> D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> OK, if you want a specific example - Sak mentioned Matthew Crawford >>>> who >>>> was on Start the Week on Monday. Matthew Crawford's thesis is that it >>>> is >>>> in human nature to derive satisfaction from interaction with and >>>> problem >>>> solving in the physical world at the manual level. >>>> >>>> I think he's probably right. >>> >>> Some human beings are unable to do that - Stephen Hawking, for >>> example. >>> He derives satisfaction from problem solving in the physical world at >>> the intellectual level. >>> >>> One counter-example is all it takes to disprove a model, am I not >>> right? >> >> Perhaps this is a problem with one's definition of the word "nature". > > [snip] > > No, it's a problem with people refusing to consider the issue of > semantics in the first place. > > I know that the problem with all such discussions is the refusal to sort > out the semantics before diving in. > > Even Daniele is guilty of that one, and he should know better. > > If it were possible to engage people in discussions on semantics to > resolve the sort of problem, discussions would be easier. > > But I've learnt that if you *DO* try to get semantics sorted out > (especially anywhere on-line), then you just get attacked viciously. > > That's the real problem - your refusal to sort out the semantics. > > You're guilty. > > Rowland. > > P.S. Your definition of `human nature' is worthless to my mind. How the hell do you work out that Zoara didn't consider semantics? Surely he did, because he offered a counter viewpoint?
From: James Jolley on 5 Jun 2010 07:25 On 2010-06-05 11:18:48 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > >>> You're guilty. >> >> You're not fit to judge. > > Please, Jim. > > Rowland is mad, and horribly sad. Don't respond. Oops then Peter, I responded because the thread was actually an ongoing one wasn't it? Not all about McLiear or McFantasist
From: Pd on 5 Jun 2010 09:16
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > you are displaying overweening pride Look Jim, nobody minds a bit of weening, but when you over ween, it's just embarrassing, you know? Now, I'm not saying I'm pure as the driven snow, or even the snow that arrived here under its own steam, which is silly for snow to do as obviously it wouldn't be snow then, but that's another debate for another thread... my point is that I've done my fair share of weening, even to the extent of once being accused of being a total weenie, but I do like to think that I pull back before plummeting over the precipice of over weenery. I do still plummet of course, but at least I do pull back *before* I plummet, which is ultimately what I'm trying to recommend to you. We should all be proud of our achievements, especially if they go against human nature (oops, I wasn't going to mention that), and even ween a little if they're particularly good accomplishments. What I can't stand is people who ween about being tall, or clever, or pretty, or any of the other things that nature hands to them on a plate, and they've done nothing to contribute to their happy coincidental situation. No, the people *I* respect are those who have calmly accepted the hand they've been dealt, played with consciousness and benevolence aforethought and come up trumps *despite* any natural disadvantages they've been given. They can ween as much as they like, without ever being in danger of overweening. Am I making myself understood here? What? Sorry, I thought you said "Susan". -- Pd That's my box of frogs. |