 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> On 03/26/10 01:28, Warp wrote:
> > I have hard time understanding the psychological phenomenon that many
> > people are eager to believe in some things based solely on what other
> > people *claim*, without any actual convincing evidence, or with just some
> > flimsy circumstancial evidence of eyewitness testimony, and *keep believing*
> > in it even after an enormously more comprehensive and accurate testing shows
> > that the thing is bogus.
> Finland must be an awesome place to live.
> Seriously? You find it hard to believe?
No, I find it hard to *understand*. Different thing.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 03/25/10 06:05, Warp wrote:
> > The danger with homeopathy is that it's an ideology which rides on
> > people's tendency to mistrust authority and herd behavior. It's an ideology
> You could simply go a step further and blame a lot of authorities for
> giving good reasons to mistrust them.
In this case "authority" would be regular, official medical practice. What
have they done to earn people's mistrust? Why is quackery more trustworthy
in the eyes of many people?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/26/10 21:11, Darren New wrote:
> Yep. I'd even guess that the fact that real medicine has become more
> effective can increase the placebo effect. It's much easier to believe
> that something can be cured nowadays than even 20 years ago, let alone 100.
Good point.
--
"Hex Dump" - Where Witches put used Curses?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/26/10 23:13, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> On 03/26/10 01:28, Warp wrote:
>>> I have hard time understanding the psychological phenomenon that many
>>> people are eager to believe in some things based solely on what other
>>> people *claim*, without any actual convincing evidence, or with just some
>>> flimsy circumstancial evidence of eyewitness testimony, and *keep believing*
>>> in it even after an enormously more comprehensive and accurate testing shows
>>> that the thing is bogus.
>
>> Finland must be an awesome place to live.
>
>> Seriously? You find it hard to believe?
>
> No, I find it hard to *understand*. Different thing.
Perhaps you really meant hard to *explain*.
--
"Hex Dump" - Where Witches put used Curses?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/26/10 23:15, Warp wrote:
>> You could simply go a step further and blame a lot of authorities for
>> giving good reasons to mistrust them.
>
> In this case "authority" would be regular, official medical practice. What
> have they done to earn people's mistrust? Why is quackery more trustworthy
> in the eyes of many people?
Well, in the US, it wouldn't be doctors, but either the FDA, or the
medical research community, or both.
I can't come up with reasons to distrust them, though. The FDA sucks
for food, but is probably quite good on medicine.
I think the main problem with those folks, though, is that they easily
generalize from legitimately distrusting n groups in authority to
"Authorities always work for vested interests".
The only difference between their stance and yours is that you're being
a bit more granular. (Which is not an irrelevant difference).
--
"Hex Dump" - Where Witches put used Curses?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4bac7025@news.povray.org...
> I really can't understand why. It's like accurate scientifical testing
which
> is more extensive and more thorough is less convincing than a much smaller
> sample of inaccurate circumstancial evidence.
>
> Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological
phenomenon
> behind this kind of thinking?
Proximity, authority, trust. A person may trust in his neighbour's,
coworker's or friend's anectodal evidence much more so than some faceless
professional's findings published on some impersonal journal. We are social
animals, and familiar faces breed trust, which makes sense in most
circumstances. For that matter, you would probably trust me more had I used
the alias "Jason" instead of "somebody".
And then there's the interest... It may be perceived (not wholly
unjustified) that medical professionals have numerous motives and interests,
and your well being may or may not be near the top of the list, while it's
harder to think that your aunt has any ulterior motives when she swears that
it was the herbal tea that cured her cancer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/26/2010 7:23 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 03/25/10 01:08, scott wrote:
>>>> accept that fact and try another medicine. For someone to be using
>>>> something on a child in the first place that has never been proven
>>>> better than placebo, and then to refuse to try something else when it's
>>>> not working, *that* is criminal.
>>>
>>> See my question to Stephen: How do you propose enforcing it?
>>
>> Same way as any other child neglect crimes. It either gets reported
>> through family/friends/school to the authorities who investigate, or in
>> the worst case the death of the child triggers the investigation. Then
>> you search for evidence they didn't search for appropriate medical care
>> (very easy if they admit to it!), then it's up to a judge/jury to decide
>> a punishment.
>
> I think you're missing my point. So what should the concerned
> neighbors/friends report? That some parent is using a treatment that is
> not certified by the FDA (in the US)? If so, you've suddenly
> criminalized all herbal treatments, and any other treatment that may be
> common elsewhere.
>
> The point being that it's hard to criminalize _just_ homeopathic
> medicine. If you want to criminalize everything that is not approved by
> some government body, I'd be dead set against it. There are too many
> things that would get banned.
>
Problem here is, the only reason these things are "not" covered by the
FDA is because a) herbal remedies where wrongfully excluded, at the
behest of people in the legislature, who argued, "if its natural, how
harmful can it be", and, at the time, no one had a damn clue how
blindingly stupid that was, and b) most of these things haven't killed
enough people, in a legally provable way, to get them "reincluded". Some
rare cases have been, and they are now covered by the FDA, and classes
as actual drugs. The catch here is, even if they could be determined to
be dangerous enough to be covered, they don't do anything themselves, so
can't fall under "drugs". Its not the FDA that would be going after most
of these, it would be other agencies, on the ***same*** basis that you
don't sell someone products that do not *do* what you claim they do,
contain what you promised, or otherwise provide what you said you where
selling. Its "fraud", not "bad medicine". And, its fraud, whether you
think some bozo digging up an old book in the library and trying it
themselves does it or not. No one is going to arrest *them* for being
stupid enough to try it. They damn well should arrest someone for making
money off of **selling** it to someone, and lying about what it does in
the process.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's the video I was thinking of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:58:06 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Remember that the active ingredient is something that *causes* the
>> > symptoms, not something that *cures* them (for example in a
>> > homeopatic sleeping pill the active ingredient is usually caffeine).
>> > Hence taking this ingredient *away* from the water likewise takes the
>> > *symptoms* away from the person. The more of it you take away, the
>> > more effective the stuff is. It makes perfect sense.
>
>> It's a load of codswallop.
>
> My text above was written in jest.
You apparently didn't see what I wrote at 2:41 PM after I posted the
quoted text above.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:01:04 +0100, scott wrote:
>> It's a load of codswallop. If I titrate caffeine to the point there's
>> none left in solution in the water, the water is *no different* than
>> taking water that's never been near caffeine. It is chemically the
>> *same*.
>
> I think these people believe there is something "beyond" basic
> chemistry, ie even when no active substance can be detected, it has
> somehow made its mark on the carrier substance (water, sugar etc). And
> as is completely normal with human nature, they subconsciously interpret
> the results of a few very unscientific tests (eg my friends mum was
> cured by it) and conclude it works.
To borrow a line from A Few Good Men, "It doesn't matter what I believe,
it only matters what I can prove!"
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:17:52 -0700, somebody wrote:
> anectodal evidence
Something of an oxymoron there; anecdotes do not make for (scientific)
*evidence*. This is something that I've had to explain to my own
management a few times: Two people saying a training course is bad (or
good) isn't the basis for doing (or not doing) a rewrite of the course.
A statistically large enough sample of those who have used the materials
*is*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>>
>> Thank you. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> :-D
Now if I could just work out how to prevent my tax dollars (I'm in Utah,
remember) from being used in the lawsuit against the federal government.
<sigh>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/03/2010 5:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>>>
>>> Thank you. :-)
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> :-D
>
> Now if I could just work out how to prevent my tax dollars (I'm in Utah,
> remember) from being used in the lawsuit against the federal government.
> <sigh>
>
Now if I could just work out what lawsuit you are talking about, because
you live in Utah :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Here's the video I was thinking of:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U
I found a related video amusing: "Why Homeopathy Works and Makes Sense":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xedLd9djgyg
Not surprisingly, it did not explain why homeopathy works or did it make
any sense...
I also like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFxniaxj_Dk
He says that:
1) James Randi is offering 1 million dollars to anyone who can prove that
homeopathy works, but Randi "is the judge, jury and executioner" (clearly
implying that it's up to Randi himself to decide whether the million dollars
are awarded or not).
It's curious how the charlatans always distort that point, even though
the James Randi Foundation makes it absolutely clear: There is *no* judging
process. Nobody, not Randi nor anybody else, goes through the results of the
experiment and decides whether it deserves the million dollars or not.
The challenge works like this: The person who claims to be able to prove
homeopathy to work (or any supernatural thing) and the foundation both agree
on a test and the testing conditions. Then the person does the test, and if
the result is what was previously agreed, he gets the million dollars
*automatically*. No questions asked, no judgement, no people deciding whether
it deserves the million dollars or not. It's automatic.
2) He has offered to Randi to demonstrate homeopathy on a double-blinded
test in order to win the million dollars, and he says that Randi agreed for
such a test to be performed. Then, rather than going and actually doing the
test, he just rambles about studies in literature. So basically he is saying
"I could do the test, but I don't have to because it has already been done
countless times". In other words, he is avoiding actually going there and
doing it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Something of an oxymoron there; anecdotes do not make for (scientific)
> *evidence*. This is something that I've had to explain to my own
> management a few times: Two people saying a training course is bad (or
> good) isn't the basis for doing (or not doing) a rewrite of the course.
> A statistically large enough sample of those who have used the materials
> *is*.
It's scary that eyewitness testimony is the *highest* form of evidence in
most courts of law, even though eyewitness testimony is more or less the
same thing as anecdotal evidence.
For some reason most people also keep anecdotal evidence in high regard,
up to it being more credible than actual physical tests.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's scary that eyewitness testimony is the *highest* form of evidence in
> most courts of law, even though eyewitness testimony is more or less the
> same thing as anecdotal evidence.
Uh, not really. The way it works in the USA is that if someone does a test,
they have to testify what the test was. So the evidence is the policeman
saying "I measured the skid marks and they were 12 feet long" followed by
the scientist saying "if you are going 87MPH and slam on the brakes, your
skid marks will be about 12 feet long." (Followed by the other side saying
"if the tire had blown out, the skid marks would be 12 feet long even if he
was only going the legal speed limit at the time" perhaps.)
One can't just present the facts. Some *person* has to present the facts
*and* testify that they are true, and then the jury has to decide whether to
believe it or not. You can't just show a photograph as evidence. You can
show a photograph as evidence if you have the photographer come up and say
"I took this photo and what's in the photo is what I saw when I took it, and
the photo hasn't been doctored."
In science, the equivalent is peer review and replicated experiments. You
don't really want to use that technique in a murder investigation. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> In science, the equivalent is peer review and replicated experiments. You
> don't really want to use that technique in a murder investigation. ;-)
10 dead in car crash. 10 more dead during the scene reconstruction.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/30/2010 10:00 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 30/03/2010 5:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> :-D
>>
>> Now if I could just work out how to prevent my tax dollars (I'm in Utah,
>> remember) from being used in the lawsuit against the federal government.
>> <sigh>
>>
>
> Now if I could just work out what lawsuit you are talking about, because
> you live in Utah :-P
>
Probably the stupid 14 state, "How dare you try to pass healthcare!",
lawsuit, which basically attempts to argue that its an unconstitutional
thing, you know.. unlike taxes, most other federal laws, and a dozen
other things, which already exists, and operate on the same principle.
Though, their biggest whine is about a clause that their own right wing
morons "insisted" be added, the, "you have to buy this, or we will
charge you a penalty", clause, called "individual mandate". Mind, it
might be some other thing they are sueing over too. Some of the so
called political leaders are not all that bright in some of these
states. Comes from having 80% of the people those states being complete
idiots, and the other 20% hanging on to their sanity, and some modicrum
of hope for electing rational people, by their fingernails. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:10:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> It's scary that eyewitness testimony is the *highest* form of
>> evidence in
>> most courts of law, even though eyewitness testimony is more or less
>> the same thing as anecdotal evidence.
>
> Uh, not really. The way it works in the USA is that if someone does a
> test, they have to testify what the test was. So the evidence is the
> policeman saying "I measured the skid marks and they were 12 feet long"
> followed by the scientist saying "if you are going 87MPH and slam on the
> brakes, your skid marks will be about 12 feet long." (Followed by the
> other side saying "if the tire had blown out, the skid marks would be 12
> feet long even if he was only going the legal speed limit at the time"
> perhaps.)
>
> One can't just present the facts. Some *person* has to present the facts
> *and* testify that they are true, and then the jury has to decide
> whether to believe it or not. You can't just show a photograph as
> evidence. You can show a photograph as evidence if you have the
> photographer come up and say "I took this photo and what's in the photo
> is what I saw when I took it, and the photo hasn't been doctored."
>
> In science, the equivalent is peer review and replicated experiments.
> You don't really want to use that technique in a murder investigation.
> ;-)
Well said, Darren.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:54:09 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Something of an oxymoron there; anecdotes do not make for (scientific)
>> *evidence*. This is something that I've had to explain to my own
>> management a few times: Two people saying a training course is bad (or
>> good) isn't the basis for doing (or not doing) a rewrite of the course.
>> A statistically large enough sample of those who have used the
>> materials *is*.
>
> It's scary that eyewitness testimony is the *highest* form of evidence
> in
> most courts of law, even though eyewitness testimony is more or less the
> same thing as anecdotal evidence.
I think that's a perceptual thing, honestly. ie, eyewitness testimony is
perceived to be the highest form of evidence, but the reality is that
it's not.
That's easily demonstrable by taking any court case where more than one
eyewitness produces a differing set of events. Who do you believe if
they both can't be right?
What is the highest form of evidence is something that can be proven to
be true. An eyewitness can say that a suspect did shoot a victim, but if
there's no weapon, no gunshot residue on the suspect's hands/clothes, and
a rock solid alibi for the suspect not being at the scene of the crime
(say, they were in jail at the time), then clearly the eyewitness
testimony isn't evidence of anything other than that the eyewitness isn't
credible.
> For some reason most people also keep anecdotal evidence in high
> regard,
> up to it being more credible than actual physical tests.
I would disagree with that based on what I wrote above. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:00:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 30/03/2010 5:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> :-D
>>
>> Now if I could just work out how to prevent my tax dollars (I'm in
>> Utah, remember) from being used in the lawsuit against the federal
>> government. <sigh>
>>
>>
> Now if I could just work out what lawsuit you are talking about, because
> you live in Utah :-P
What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
government for passing the healthcare legislation.
This is the same state government that recently passed a law that
essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an accident
that causes the death of her unborn child can be held criminally
responsible for the death of that unborn child. (This came about because
of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a miscarriage
intentionally by causing an accident.)
It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/30/2010 1:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:00:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 30/03/2010 5:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>> :-D
>>>
>>> Now if I could just work out how to prevent my tax dollars (I'm in
>>> Utah, remember) from being used in the lawsuit against the federal
>>> government.<sigh>
>>>
>>>
>> Now if I could just work out what lawsuit you are talking about, because
>> you live in Utah :-P
>
> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>
Course.. One of the other 14 is doing one better than that. They
"passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually
identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing
the same thing. Lot of serious stupid right now from the right. One only
hopes that the effect will be less violent, but otherwise similar, to
certain French nobility's babble about starving people and eating cake.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Uh, not really. The way it works in the USA is that if someone does a test,
> they have to testify what the test was. So the evidence is the policeman
> saying "I measured the skid marks and they were 12 feet long" followed by
> the scientist saying "if you are going 87MPH and slam on the brakes, your
> skid marks will be about 12 feet long." (Followed by the other side saying
> "if the tire had blown out, the skid marks would be 12 feet long even if he
> was only going the legal speed limit at the time" perhaps.)
That doesn't sound like eyewitness testimony. That sound like a policeman
testifying what he did.
Eyewitness testimony is more like: "Is the man you saw exiting the building
in this court room? Could you point him out?" "Yes, he is the defendant."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> That's easily demonstrable by taking any court case where more than one
> eyewitness produces a differing set of events. Who do you believe if
> they both can't be right?
That makes it easy. The problems start when two eyewitnesses give the
same testimony... which happens to be wrong.
> > For some reason most people also keep anecdotal evidence in high
> > regard,
> > up to it being more credible than actual physical tests.
> I would disagree with that based on what I wrote above. :-)
I said "most people", not "courts of law".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That doesn't sound like eyewitness testimony. That sound like a policeman
> testifying what he did.
Yes. It's still "eyewitness" rather than "physical tests." It's a
description of the physical tests the cop performed, is what I was trying to
say.
> Eyewitness testimony is more like: "Is the man you saw exiting the building
> in this court room? Could you point him out?" "Yes, he is the defendant."
Yes. Of course, you have to evaluate the credibility of the witness. If
one person says "I saw George leaving the building" and another says "George
was with me in a different city all day", how do you resolve that
scientifically? That's what expert witnesses are for. "Yes, this person
*did* die because of a blow to the head, and not drowning, even though we
found the victim floating in the lake." Is that a fact or an opinion?
When something only happens once, anecdote is all you have.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> "passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually
> identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing
> the same thing.
Nothing wrong with that.
No more than saying a cop is allowed to handcuff me but my neighbor is not.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:17:43 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That's easily demonstrable by taking any court case where more than one
>> eyewitness produces a differing set of events. Who do you believe if
>> they both can't be right?
>
> That makes it easy. The problems start when two eyewitnesses give the
> same testimony... which happens to be wrong.
Then it's the lawyer's job to prove that the eyewitnesses are wrong. And
that does happen quite often.
Real court in the US isn't like you see on TV. I enjoy watching Law &
Order, for example, but I have actually sat on a jury as well - and it's
nowhere near as exciting as the TV shows make it out to be.
The drug trial that I sat on the jury for, for example, the lead of the
SWAT team that broke down the door told us what he saw upon entering the
house and what happened. He was a professional witness, though, and as a
trained observer, his version of what happened would naturally be given
more weight unless his credibility was impeached (and it wasn't, though
the newbie defense lawyer tried to). The defendant didn't take the stand
(because it turned out he was actually guilty - even the defense lawyer
knew it - and if he'd been put on the stand, the prosecution would've
shredded him).
>> > For some reason most people also keep anecdotal evidence in high
>> > regard,
>> > up to it being more credible than actual physical tests.
>
>> I would disagree with that based on what I wrote above. :-)
>
> I said "most people", not "courts of law".
That's a fair point, and I had assumed you meant "in court" because
that's most often what I think of when I hear about "eyewitness
reports" (I don't spend a lot of time watching the news myself, so that
may be what more people think about than just "court").
And I would agree that "most people" do tend to give an unreasonable
amount of weight to anecdotal evidence - I deal with that on a daily
basis. One person writing an e-mail complaining about a course can have
more effect than statistical data that shows that the course is actually
quite good.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:08:49 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Course.. One of the other 14 is doing one better than that. They
> "passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually
> identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing
> the same thing. Lot of serious stupid right now from the right. One only
> hopes that the effect will be less violent, but otherwise similar, to
> certain French nobility's babble about starving people and eating cake.
That's crazy. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/03/2010 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>
> This is the same state government that recently passed a law that
> essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an accident
> that causes the death of her unborn child can be held criminally
> responsible for the death of that unborn child. (This came about because
> of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a miscarriage
> intentionally by causing an accident.)
>
Bloody Ada!
> It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.
>
Go for it!
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:50:46 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I found a related video amusing: "Why Homeopathy Works and Makes
> Sense":
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xedLd9djgyg
>
> Not surprisingly, it did not explain why homeopathy works or did it
> make
> any sense...
My $DEITY, I think I lost IQ points listening to this. Somehow
"nanodoses" are the same as "ultra-low frequency waves"....WHAT?
> I also like this one:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFxniaxj_Dk
>
> He says that:
One of the funnier things I've seen recently. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:46:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 30/03/2010 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
>> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>>
>> This is the same state government that recently passed a law that
>> essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an
>> accident that causes the death of her unborn child can be held
>> criminally responsible for the death of that unborn child. (This came
>> about because of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a
>> miscarriage intentionally by causing an accident.)
>>
>>
> Bloody Ada!
Yeah, I know - both on the accusation (and if true, that should carry a
stiff penalty IMHO) and on the extrapolation.
>> It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.
>>
> Go for it!
Probably another year before we can - Ken's still finishing up school,
with luck will graduate in the spring (depends on his credit load).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/30/2010 3:01 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> "passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually
>> identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing
>> the same thing.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.
>
> No more than saying a cop is allowed to handcuff me but my neighbor is not.
>
Uh.. No, this is more like, "The cop in my town can do it, but I don't
want them damn Highway Patrol people laying a hand on me." The point is,
the man protesting the government reform is the same one who instituted
the near identical thing in his own state. And he isn't the only one.
Can't remember which one, but they recently *elected* a Tea Party moron,
who promised to go after the current bill, while his own state has one
which is universal, which this one isn't even close to being.
But, that isn't some of the craziest out there. There is actually one
state which just passed a law that a) attempts to deny the federal
government from interfering with investigations of hate crimes in their
state, and b) excludes a specific set of definitions for that, in their
own law, so that they can continue to discriminate. The absolutely
hilarious thing is, they intended to erase the part of the law that
covered gay people, so that churches could "continue to tell the truth
about the gay agenda...". Ooooh! Only one problem. The morons wrote the
law wrong, and instead of repealing the new law that covered gay
bashing, they repealed the portion of their state law covering,
"Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or religion." Apparently..
they are real damn good at hating them gays, but not so good at keeping
track of ***numbers***, which are used to refer to the subclauses that
cover a specific definition of the crimes.
In other words, its **still** illegal to bash gays, but no longer
illegal there to bash and/or discriminate against Jews, Christians,
women, men, blacks, hispanics, indians, or ***anything else***. But, you
can't do it against gay people, since that part of the law is still in
effect. lol
We are dealing with serious morons here.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The point is,
> the man protesting the government reform is the same one who instituted
> the near identical thing in his own state.
You *do* understand that we have a federal constitution, right? Are you
aware of why you pay local property taxes but not federal property taxes?
But sure, I guess if you lump everyone in as "the government" it might make
sense to complain. That's just not how it works here.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/1/2010 8:46 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The point is, the man protesting the government reform is the same one
>> who instituted the near identical thing in his own state.
>
> You *do* understand that we have a federal constitution, right? Are you
> aware of why you pay local property taxes but not federal property taxes?
>
> But sure, I guess if you lump everyone in as "the government" it might
> make sense to complain. That's just not how it works here.
>
For something like this, you need "consistency". If you don't, then what
you get is what we have already, everyone but the people in state X, or
Y, get screwed, and lots of people with money from the companies in
their pockets go around saying, "I don't see anything wrong here!" We
are not talking about anything crazy, just basically what people that
work for the fed already get themselves, and half the people scared of
it passing **already had** in the form of Medicade/Medicare. In fact, if
that was what we where getting, it would be better, only... the same
assholes that fought it passing also want to kill those too, and spend
their time lying about it.
Its not about bloody property taxes, its about one single, consistent,
nation wide, way of securing the health, as much as possible, of *every*
citizen, not just which ever states, cities, or non-corp owned plots of
land, just happen to pass something that tries to fix the problem. One
whole side of the political spectrum does nothing but lie about what it
is, lie about what they already have, lie about what they claim is going
to be lost, lie about the cost, etc., while **taking money** from the
companies that provide insurance. Its a matter of ethics. Its not
ethical to leave half the country with substandard care, and let
**insurance companies** tax people for 30%-40%-50% of costs that they
are inflating in the first place, then stand around, with high quality
government health care, saying, "Problem? I don't see a problem!" And
that is what one whole political party seems to be doing. I don't give a
damn if its done on a state level, or a federal, but the states, not to
mention the Republicans themselves, had a chance, and did nothing but
allow it to get this way, even when they have had all the power, and
time, in the world to see it coming, and do something to stop it.
As for the ones who now "represent" states that did do something...
Their hypocrisy is even worse, since they are saying, "We can't accept
having the fed provide a program to everyone, which we did as a state,
and which some states can't afford, given they are already doing things
like closing schools. But, instead of just complaining that it should be
a state by state thing, we are going to call it socialism, and lie about
our own state already passing it."
Its not about who does it. Its about the lies, the hypocrisy, and the
outright, in far too many cases, of complete lack of ethics, shown by
pandering to corporations, instead of representing the ***people***.
Many of these so "concerned" with the issue are doing all fracking
three, often in the same bloody sentence, because they don't have any
desire, or intent, to do a damn thing about a problem that almost
everyone, including them, when being honest, say **will be** the next
depression triggering financial crisis in this country.
They don't have plans, unless you imagine, "handing more control over to
the people already screwing us", (typical libertarian logic...) is a
"plan", and they don't think any plan that doesn't involve that is
sound, so they will lie about *everything* to defeat it, including their
own state's method of providing care. Imho, doing that sort of thing
should be grounds for firing, but apparently, in the US, its a lot damn
harder to vote "no confidence" and replace these people, and,
unfortunately, too many other morons fall for their bullshit to do it,
even if we could. To quote Olberman, to them, "You where elected to
serve the *people*." Not corporations.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> For something like this, you need "consistency".
Great. Pass an amendment. That's how it works. :-)
> Its not about bloody property taxes, its about one single, consistent,
> nation wide, way of securing the health, as much as possible, of *every*
> citizen, not just which ever states, cities, or non-corp owned plots of
> land, just happen to pass something that tries to fix the problem.
I understand that you *want* that. I want it too. But it's perfectly
reasonable for a state government to say "that's not your job, Uncle Sam."
> Its not about who does it.
Actually, yeah, it is. At least in *this* lawsuit.
Note that I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of health care reform
etc. I'm commenting on the fact that it's perfectly reasonable for states to
do something while complaining the feds should not be doing that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/04/2010 4:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:46:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 30/03/2010 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
>>> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>>>
>>> This is the same state government that recently passed a law that
>>> essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an
>>> accident that causes the death of her unborn child can be held
>>> criminally responsible for the death of that unborn child. (This came
>>> about because of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a
>>> miscarriage intentionally by causing an accident.)
>>>
>>>
>> Bloody Ada!
>
> Yeah, I know - both on the accusation (and if true, that should carry a
> stiff penalty IMHO) and on the extrapolation.
>
Not a lot to be said.
>>> It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.
>>>
>> Go for it!
>
> Probably another year before we can - Ken's still finishing up school,
> with luck will graduate in the spring (depends on his credit load).
>
Out of interest, do you qualify for a visa?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:03:02 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> Out of interest, do you qualify for a visa?
In Scotland, it seems that we would - England is another matter, but
we've been looking into it for a couple years now.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/04/2010 8:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:03:02 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Out of interest, do you qualify for a visa?
>
> In Scotland, it seems that we would - England is another matter, but
> we've been looking into it for a couple years now.
>
> Jim
I didn’t realise that there were different criteria. I thought it was
all controlled by the UK Border Agency.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/1/2010 1:00 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> For something like this, you need "consistency".
>
> Great. Pass an amendment. That's how it works. :-)
>
>> Its not about bloody property taxes, its about one single, consistent,
>> nation wide, way of securing the health, as much as possible, of
>> *every* citizen, not just which ever states, cities, or non-corp owned
>> plots of land, just happen to pass something that tries to fix the
>> problem.
>
> I understand that you *want* that. I want it too. But it's perfectly
> reasonable for a state government to say "that's not your job, Uncle Sam."
>
>> Its not about who does it.
>
> Actually, yeah, it is. At least in *this* lawsuit.
>
> Note that I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of health care
> reform etc. I'm commenting on the fact that it's perfectly reasonable
> for states to do something while complaining the feds should not be
> doing that.
>
They are not even complaining that the "fed" is doing it. Their entire
complaint hinges on the claim that the fed can't "force" people to buy
it, by charging them more, if they don't. This is flat out wrong, based
on numerous case histories. The people apposed to the bill would love,
now that Dems have managed to do what they failed to, pass some other
version themselves, and they are not going to shoot themselves in the
foot by declaring federal health care *itself* as illegal. Do that and
you lose Medicare and Medicade too, since they are federal.
So, no, its "not" about how is doing this, unless you mean, "which party
are they in".
I'll repeat. The states are not complaining about the fed passing such a
bill, they are complaining about a specific detail in the bill that they
think is wrong, and, in a fit of unbelievable hypocrisy, the
representatives in those states that pushed for such a lawsuit, where
responsible for *getting* included in the first place. Its all about,
"We couldn't kill it, so now we will kill it another way." It hasn't a
damn thing to do with whether the fed passed such a thing, its about
Democrats doing it.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, that and the fact that man of the states are also suing over
things that are ***not even in the legislation***, just like the Tea
Partiers, whining about things it does, doesn't do, or says, which are
not in their either.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:12:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> I didn’t realise that there were different criteria. I thought it was
> all controlled by the UK Border Agency.
Yeah, I would have thought so as well, but there are rules specific to
each country within the UK - Scotland has been in a bit of a population
decline, so apparently their rules are a bit more lax.
Biggest thing going for me is that I have an employment option in
Scotland - that counts quite a lot for the points required for entry (and
we all know what points mean...<G>). :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/04/2010 4:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:12:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> I didn’t realise that there were different criteria. I thought it was
>> all controlled by the UK Border Agency.
>
> Yeah, I would have thought so as well, but there are rules specific to
> each country within the UK - Scotland has been in a bit of a population
> decline, so apparently their rules are a bit more lax.
>
Well, what do you know? :-)
Obviously more than me. :-D
> Biggest thing going for me is that I have an employment option in
> Scotland - that counts quite a lot for the points required for entry
Hoots Mon.
Chorus:
Over There, Over There
Send the word, send the word,
Over There
That the Yanks are coming,
The Yanks are coming,
The drums rum tumming everywhere.
:-P
> (and we all know what points mean...<G>). :-)
>
Longer rendering times ;-)
<big>Prizes!</big>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:10:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> Well, what do you know? :-)
> Obviously more than me. :-D
Not as much as my wife, though, who's done all the legwork on it. ;-)
>> Biggest thing going for me is that I have an employment option in
>> Scotland - that counts quite a lot for the points required for entry
>
> Hoots Mon.
>
> Chorus:
> Over There, Over There
> Send the word, send the word,
> Over There
> That the Yanks are coming,
> The Yanks are coming,
> The drums rum tumming everywhere.
>
> :-P
:P indeed. ;-)
>> (and we all know what points mean...<G>). :-)
>>
>>
> Longer rendering times ;-)
>
>
> <big>Prizes!</big>
This week's prize is just the thing to stop pets from cluttering up your
house...it's this attractive mahogony cat stand.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/04/2010 7:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:10:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Well, what do you know? :-)
>> Obviously more than me. :-D
>
> Not as much as my wife, though, who's done all the legwork on it. ;-)
>
The way of the world. ;-)
>> That the Yanks are coming,
>> :-P
>
> :P indeed. ;-)
>
Good that you have a sense of humour. You’ll need it in Edinburg <from a
Weegie>
>>> (and we all know what points mean...<G>). :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Longer rendering times ;-)
>>
>>
>> <big>Prizes!</big>
>
> This week's prize is just the thing to stop pets from cluttering up your
> house...it's this attractive mahogony cat stand.
OMG You can buy them.
http://www.allpetfurniture.com/The-Refined-Feline-LOT-MA-TRF1000.html
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:34:34 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>> Obviously more than me. :-D
>>
>> Not as much as my wife, though, who's done all the legwork on it. ;-)
>>
> The way of the world. ;-)
<g>
>>> That the Yanks are coming,
>>> :-P
>>
>> :P indeed. ;-)
>>
>>
> Good that you have a sense of humour. You’ll need it in Edinburg <from a
> Weegie>
How could I not have a sense of humour? ;-)
Then again, I can see why the natives might think so - so many American
expats expect things to be "just like home" when they move to the UK -
and that's one of the major reasons they come back to the US.
I'm always amazed at people who think the rest of the world should be
"just like it is at home". I probably related my experiences in Russia
before, where the youth in the group (which was 99% of us) were happy to
experience the country the way it was, but at least one of the chaperones
was bitterly disappointed that she couldn't get a hamburger or slice of
pizza anywhere we went.
>>>> (and we all know what points mean...<G>). :-)
>>>>
>>> Longer rendering times ;-)
>>>
>>> <big>Prizes!</big>
>>
>> This week's prize is just the thing to stop pets from cluttering up
>> your house...it's this attractive mahogony cat stand.
>
> OMG You can buy them.
> http://www.allpetfurniture.com/The-Refined-Feline-LOT-MA-TRF1000.html
Talk about the luck of the draw - I picked that one completely at random
from the ones Humph had used in the past. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/04/2010 7:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> How could I not have a sense of humour?;-)
>
Of course you are, I believe, the current PovRay Mornington Crescent
champion.
> Then again, I can see why the natives might think so - so many American
> expats expect things to be "just like home" when they move to the UK -
> and that's one of the major reasons they come back to the US.
>
You should see the Costas in southern Spain. They have adapted so the
majority of cafes sell all day “Full English Breakfast”.
Once in holiday in Crete, I drove for miles down a farm road following
signs to a restaurant. Imagine our dismay when the menu was all German
meatballs, sauerkraut and spaghetti. Imagine our delight when on asking
if they had any Greek food we were taken into the kitchen to share the
owner’s food. :-D
> I'm always amazed at people who think the rest of the world should be
> "just like it is at home". I probably related my experiences in Russia
> before, where the youth in the group (which was 99% of us) were happy to
> experience the country the way it was, but at least one of the chaperones
> was bitterly disappointed that she couldn't get a hamburger or slice of
> pizza anywhere we went.
>
She should have gone to Germany or Italy but even then I guess she would
have been disappointed.
>> > OMG You can buy them.
>> > http://www.allpetfurniture.com/The-Refined-Feline-LOT-MA-TRF1000.html
> Talk about the luck of the draw - I picked that one completely at random
> from the ones Humph had used in the past.:-)
LOL :-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:17:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/04/2010 7:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> How could I not have a sense of humour?;-)
>>
>>
> Of course you are, I believe, the current PovRay Mornington Crescent
> champion.
LOL - I believe you are correct. I'm still looking forward to the
rematch (we just re-listened to the first game ever of MC last night - it
was awfully short <g>).
>> Then again, I can see why the natives might think so - so many American
>> expats expect things to be "just like home" when they move to the UK -
>> and that's one of the major reasons they come back to the US.
>>
> You should see the Costas in southern Spain. They have adapted so the
> majority of cafes sell all day “Full English Breakfast”. Once in holiday
> in Crete, I drove for miles down a farm road following signs to a
> restaurant. Imagine our dismay when the menu was all German meatballs,
> sauerkraut and spaghetti. Imagine our delight when on asking if they had
> any Greek food we were taken into the kitchen to share the owner’s food.
> :-D
LOL - that's a great story! I can't imagine sauerkraut and spaghetti
together - that sounds simply revolting. (But I also don't like
sauerkraut at all, so that might have something to do with my opinion
here <g>).
>> I'm always amazed at people who think the rest of the world should be
>> "just like it is at home". I probably related my experiences in Russia
>> before, where the youth in the group (which was 99% of us) were happy
>> to experience the country the way it was, but at least one of the
>> chaperones was bitterly disappointed that she couldn't get a hamburger
>> or slice of pizza anywhere we went.
>>
> She should have gone to Germany or Italy but even then I guess she would
> have been disappointed.
Very likely. I think the happiest day of the trip for her was the day we
saw the pizza truck in Moscow. All the art museums and concert halls we
saw, and that was the highlight for her. Sad.
>>> > OMG You can buy them.
>>> > http://www.allpetfurniture.com/The-Refined-Feline-LOT-MA-
TRF1000.html
>> Talk about the luck of the draw - I picked that one completely at
>> random from the ones Humph had used in the past.:-)
>
> LOL :-)
We're now going to have to look for the first appearance of Samantha and
the first instance of Humph abusing Colin Sell. He's being awfully nice
to Colin in the 197x series...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/04/2010 5:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> LOL - I believe you are correct. I'm still looking forward to the
> rematch (we just re-listened to the first game ever of MC last night - it
> was awfully short<g>).
>
The programme wasn’t as slick in those days.
>
> LOL - that's a great story! I can't imagine sauerkraut and spaghetti
> together - that sounds simply revolting. (But I also don't like
> sauerkraut at all, so that might have something to do with my opinion
> here<g>).
>
Ok, maybe my punctuation was off :-P
I don’t like sauerkraut either
>> She should have gone to Germany or Italy but even then I guess she would
>> have been disappointed.
>
> Very likely. I think the happiest day of the trip for her was the day we
> saw the pizza truck in Moscow. All the art museums and concert halls we
> saw, and that was the highlight for her. Sad.
>
Sad very, very sad.
> We're now going to have to look for the first appearance of Samantha and
> the first instance of Humph abusing Colin Sell. He's being awfully nice
> to Colin in the 197x series...
Are you listening to broadcasts or do you have recordings?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:57:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 06/04/2010 5:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> LOL - I believe you are correct. I'm still looking forward to the
>> rematch (we just re-listened to the first game ever of MC last night -
>> it was awfully short<g>).
>>
>>
> The programme wasn’t as slick in those days.
True, but there's certainly a "genuine" feel to it nonetheless. :-)
>> LOL - that's a great story! I can't imagine sauerkraut and spaghetti
>> together - that sounds simply revolting. (But I also don't like
>> sauerkraut at all, so that might have something to do with my opinion
>> here<g>).
>>
>>
> Ok, maybe my punctuation was off :-P
> I don’t like sauerkraut either
LOL
>> We're now going to have to look for the first appearance of Samantha
>> and the first instance of Humph abusing Colin Sell. He's being awfully
>> nice to Colin in the 197x series...
>
> Are you listening to broadcasts or do you have recordings?
I have recordings. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/2010 2:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:57:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> The programme wasn’t as slick in those days.
>
> True, but there's certainly a "genuine" feel to it nonetheless. :-)
>
Yes, yes :-D
>> Are you listening to broadcasts or do you have recordings?
>
> I have recordings. :-)
>
> Jim
Lucky you. :-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
