On 11/19/2012 5:58 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> "The Bible is absolutely, literal, true, or
>> at least the bits we don't gloss over."
>
> The Bible is literally true as long as you interpret it correctly.
>
> (That's what they actually say, and they don't see the contradiction.)
>
What contradictions? You mean, its actually hard to explain away things 
like: Romans - Nice people go to heaven. vs. Ecclesiastics - There is 
nothing for anyone in death, you will gain nothing, be rewarded with 
nothing, do nothing, learn nothing, etc., etc...? I would think it would 
be real simple! lol

and, that is just one of the funniest contradictions (from the position 
of rejecting deities), in there.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > The Bible is literally true as long as you interpret it correctly.
> >
> > (That's what they actually say, and they don't see the contradiction.)
> >
> What contradictions?

No. I mean that something that's accurate and literally true wouldn't
need interpretation to be understood properly. The very fact that it
requires interpretation (and that it's open up to it) is contradictory
to the claim that it's literal.

(And it being open up to interpretation really can be seen, given that
there are over 30 thousand denominations of Christianity, all of them
varying interpretations, some of them with wildly varying ones, even on
core issues.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 19/11/2012 10:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>> I don’t know about the history of suffrage in America. In Britain we had
>> to fight for the right and I am violently opposed to any reduction, even
>> if it is in the best interest. Whose best interest, I wonder?
>
> We fought a war with Britain over it. ;)
>

Quite right too..

BTW who won?


> As for whose best interest, I have to quote Star Trek:  "The needs of the
> many outweigh the needs of the few."
>
>>>> Tell that to the marines. ;-)
>>>
>>> ???  I don't understand.
>>>

It means that I doubt the veracity of your statement. :-P


> Yep.  And not voting is different than voting for nobody, as there's the
> distinction between apathy and participation to be drawn.
>

True.

>
> Glad you're OK.
>

I just had to brake harder than I would have wanted to.


> I live in Utah, and with luck, we'll be moving to a saner place.  If
> supporting a minority party in an ultra-conservative state doesn't
> disillusion me, moving someplace more liberal isn't likely to either. ;)
>

No, but old age can. :-)


>
> Hehehehehehe, yeah, I know.  If I were in the UK, I'd probably be LibDem
> or Green leaning.  Though Clegg hasn't really impressed.
>

He hasn't impressed his own party either.
But then (here I go again) he is a politician.


>> Do I look that soft? ;-)
>
> I dunno, don't think I've ever seen a picture of you, come to think of it.
>

I am a bit camera shy.

>>> That's a tough one.  On the one hand, yes - but it's more or less a
>>> passive activity, like paying your phone bill.
>>>
>> Only if you don't have a good accountant.
>
> s/a good/an/
>

Sorry, I don't get that. :-(


> Wait, did I get the roles backwards?  I did, I meant it the other way
> around.  The grunts don't make the decisions at the time, but one hopes
> that they remember what it was to be a grunt when they become the one in
> charge.
>

Probably one of the reasons that you had so many dissatisfied vets from Nam.


> I think that's the case here as well, but yeah, I know in the UK there's
> a bit of a class division there as well.  Got a friend who was in the
> upper of those ranks, and he can get quite annoying at times when it
> comes to telling stories about the royals that he's interacted with.
> <rolleyes>
>

If you want to get a dig in, call him Rupert. ;-)


> Some do, if they actually took experience away from the experience.  But
> that's another point, too, that sending your own children into battle is
> different than those of a stranger.
>

How many children of senators went to the Gulf or Afghanistan?

>>>
>> Me too. Praise the Lord.
>
> Or the FSM. ;)

Lordy, that brings back memories.

>
> I wonder if you can view what's on thedailyshow.com - not sure if there's
> a geographical restriction or not.
>

Only clips, last time I looked.

>> Good luck with it. (Maybe Andrew can give you some tips.) (Feck, that's
>> cruel, sorry.)
>
> LOL - I spent the entire weekend prepping (even though it's not scheduled
> yet), installing the product (I've installed the predecessors), making
> notes, analysing what data I can get my hands on (not much).
>

The way to go. :-D

> I met the hiring manager before the position was opened, and that helps,
> because I have an idea what to expect.  I'm very familiar with the
> company and the product's predecessors, know lots of people (including at
> least one person he reports to - the guy who introduced us) at the
> company who know him - so I think my chances are good.  They want a
> degree (and prefer an MBA for the role), but I think my experience and
> skills stand a good chance of offsetting that as a hard requirement (and
> often while those are listed as requirements, they're not a hard
> requirement if someone with the right mix of skills and experience comes
> along).
>

Right, often HR will put it in the job spec but the hiring boss just 
wants someone who can do the job of at least learn quickly.

BTW What has Business Administration got to do with technical roles?

>> I've downloaded it but I've not had time to sit down and listen to it.
>> Maybe at the weekend.
>
> They seem to have become more comfortable as a team than in previous
> series with Jack at the helm.

I thought that they had settles in fine, last season.

>
> Must remember to grab the new one tonight. :)
>
Good luck. I tried tonight (Wednesday) and it still hasn't been 
uploaded, here. :-(



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/21/2012 5:01 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> The Bible is literally true as long as you interpret it correctly.
>>>
>>> (That's what they actually say, and they don't see the contradiction.)
>>>
>> What contradictions?
>
> No. I mean that something that's accurate and literally true wouldn't
> need interpretation to be understood properly. The very fact that it
> requires interpretation (and that it's open up to it) is contradictory
> to the claim that it's literal.
>
> (And it being open up to interpretation really can be seen, given that
> there are over 30 thousand denominations of Christianity, all of them
> varying interpretations, some of them with wildly varying ones, even on
> core issues.)
>
More or less my point, though, in fact, the real point is, that you also 
can't "not" interpret such a thing, when it can't even get basic things, 
at the core of its entire story, straight, like, whether or not you 
actually still exist in any sense you did in life (or anything vaguely 
resembling that, or, even at all). Taken "literal", the implication of 
ecclesiastics *should be*, "Don't screw up now, because there isn't any 
'after'". Its not until the NT that they borrow Roman/Greek nonsense 
about an afterlife, then try to make it sound like something better than 
the sort of endless, but otherwise, meaningless existence they thought 
there was in death.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:11:39 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> We fought a war with Britain over it. ;)
>>
> Quite right too..
> 
> BTW who won?

I guess that's a matter of perspective. ;)

>>>>> Tell that to the marines. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> ???  I don't understand.
>>>>
> It means that I doubt the veracity of your statement. :-P

Ah, I see. :)

>> I live in Utah, and with luck, we'll be moving to a saner place.  If
>> supporting a minority party in an ultra-conservative state doesn't
>> disillusion me, moving someplace more liberal isn't likely to either.
>> ;)
>>
> No, but old age can. :-)

I guess that's all relative.  I'm 42 this year.  :)

>> Hehehehehehe, yeah, I know.  If I were in the UK, I'd probably be
>> LibDem or Green leaning.  Though Clegg hasn't really impressed.
>>
>>
> He hasn't impressed his own party either.
> But then (here I go again) he is a politician.

That's certainly true (both things). :)

>>> Do I look that soft? ;-)
>>
>> I dunno, don't think I've ever seen a picture of you, come to think of
>> it.
>>
>>
> I am a bit camera shy.

So am I, I prefer being behind the camera.

>>>> That's a tough one.  On the one hand, yes - but it's more or less a
>>>> passive activity, like paying your phone bill.
>>>>
>>> Only if you don't have a good accountant.
>>
>> s/a good/an/
>>
> Sorry, I don't get that. :-(

Regex parsing.  I'm changing your statement from:

"Only if you don't have a good accountant."

to

"Only if you don't have an accountant."

:)

>> Wait, did I get the roles backwards?  I did, I meant it the other way
>> around.  The grunts don't make the decisions at the time, but one hopes
>> that they remember what it was to be a grunt when they become the one
>> in charge.
>>
> Probably one of the reasons that you had so many dissatisfied vets from
> Nam.

Very possibly.

>> I think that's the case here as well, but yeah, I know in the UK
>> there's a bit of a class division there as well.  Got a friend who was
>> in the upper of those ranks, and he can get quite annoying at times
>> when it comes to telling stories about the royals that he's interacted
>> with. <rolleyes>
>>
> If you want to get a dig in, call him Rupert. ;-)

Ooooh, I'll have to remember that. ;)

>> Some do, if they actually took experience away from the experience. 
>> But that's another point, too, that sending your own children into
>> battle is different than those of a stranger.
>>
> How many children of senators went to the Gulf or Afghanistan?

Not nearly enough.  A few, though.  ISTR that one of Biden's kids either 
served or is serving.

>>> Me too. Praise the Lord.
>>
>> Or the FSM. ;)
> 
> Lordy, that brings back memories.

Good ones? ;)

>> I wonder if you can view what's on thedailyshow.com - not sure if
>> there's a geographical restriction or not.
>>
>>
> Only clips, last time I looked.

They usually break the episode up into clips, even when they do 
interviews, often they're 2 and 3 parts (sometimes they're extended 
interviews).

>>> Good luck with it. (Maybe Andrew can give you some tips.) (Feck,
>>> that's cruel, sorry.)
>>
>> LOL - I spent the entire weekend prepping (even though it's not
>> scheduled yet), installing the product (I've installed the
>> predecessors), making notes, analysing what data I can get my hands on
>> (not much).
>>
> The way to go. :-D

Yep, preparation is important.  The interview in Portland I wasn't nearly 
well enough prepared for, it seems.  I know this company inside and out - 
since I worked there before. ;)  But I know there are people who have 
been there for decades who don't know as many people there as I do, and 
that could well work to my advantage.

>> I met the hiring manager before the position was opened, and that
>> helps, because I have an idea what to expect.  I'm very familiar with
>> the company and the product's predecessors, know lots of people
>> (including at least one person he reports to - the guy who introduced
>> us) at the company who know him - so I think my chances are good.  They
>> want a degree (and prefer an MBA for the role), but I think my
>> experience and skills stand a good chance of offsetting that as a hard
>> requirement (and often while those are listed as requirements, they're
>> not a hard requirement if someone with the right mix of skills and
>> experience comes along).
>>
> Right, often HR will put it in the job spec but the hiring boss just
> wants someone who can do the job of at least learn quickly.
> 
> BTW What has Business Administration got to do with technical roles?

It's product management, so it involves market analysis and understanding 
the revenue streams and such as well as the technical sides.

I've got a former coworker who's got the same title this position has, 
and he's only got a high school diploma and a similar career path to what 
I have (but without the IT background, he started in product support 
IIRC).  That gives me a fair amount of hope.  Going to try to catch up 
with him on Monday to get insight from him on how he got in where he is.

>>> I've downloaded it but I've not had time to sit down and listen to it.
>>> Maybe at the weekend.
>>
>> They seem to have become more comfortable as a team than in previous
>> series with Jack at the helm.
> 
> I thought that they had settles in fine, last season.

They had, but it's even better now. :)

>> Must remember to grab the new one tonight. :)
>>
> Good luck. I tried tonight (Wednesday) and it still hasn't been
> uploaded, here. :-(

I got it without any problems - I can send it if you like. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22/11/2012 10:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:11:39 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> >>We fought a war with Britain over it.;)
>>> >>
>> >Quite right too..
>> >
>> >BTW who won?
> I guess that's a matter of perspective.;)
>

Yes, as Zhou Enlai said when asked about the French revolution.
"It is too soon to say."

>>> >>I live in Utah, and with luck, we'll be moving to a saner place.  If
>>> >>supporting a minority party in an ultra-conservative state doesn't
>>> >>disillusion me, moving someplace more liberal isn't likely to either.
>>> >>;)
>>> >>
>> >No, but old age can.:-)
> I guess that's all relative.  I'm 42 this year.:)
>

No! You are 21. Again. :-)

>> >I am a bit camera shy.
> So am I, I prefer being behind the camera.
>

So did I until I found that I preferred to be behind the Renderer. :-)

>> >Sorry, I don't get that.:-(
> Regex parsing.  I'm changing your statement from:
>
> "Only if you don't have a good accountant."
>
> to
>
> "Only if you don't have an accountant."
>
> :)
>

True, but good accountants can keep you out of jail, too.#
>>> >>Wait, did I get the roles backwards?  I did, I meant it the other way
>>> >>around.  The grunts don't make the decisions at the time, but one hopes
>>> >>that they remember what it was to be a grunt when they become the one
>>> >>in charge.
>>> >>

So! This conversation gave me an idea for this TC-RTC. Which can be 
found and voted on at http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/ if you are a member.

>>> >>
>> >If you want to get a dig in, call him Rupert.;-)
> Ooooh, I'll have to remember that.;)
>

Or "A" Rupert ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:27:57 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>>> >>We fought a war with Britain over it.;)
>>>> >>
>>> >Quite right too..
>>> >
>>> >BTW who won?
>> I guess that's a matter of perspective.;)
>>
> Yes, as Zhou Enlai said when asked about the French revolution.
> "It is too soon to say."

LOL

>> I guess that's all relative.  I'm 42 this year.:)
>>
> No! You are 21. Again. :-)

No, I'll take 42.  Amy calls it my "Answer Birthday". :)

>>> >I am a bit camera shy.
>> So am I, I prefer being behind the camera.
>>
> So did I until I found that I preferred to be behind the Renderer. :-)

LOL

> True, but good accountants can keep you out of jail, too.#

They can also put you in jail, just ask Al Capone. ;)

>>>> >>Wait, did I get the roles backwards?  I did, I meant it the other
>>>> >>way around.  The grunts don't make the decisions at the time, but
>>>> >>one hopes that they remember what it was to be a grunt when they
>>>> >>become the one in charge.
>>>> >>
> So! This conversation gave me an idea for this TC-RTC. Which can be
> found and voted on at http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/ if you are a member.

Will do - not a member, I don't think, but still like to see the 
renderings. :)

>>> >If you want to get a dig in, call him Rupert.;-)
>> Ooooh, I'll have to remember that.;)
>>
> Or "A" Rupert ;-)

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:15:37 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Will do - not a member, I don't think, but still like to see the
> renderings. :)

Nice work, did see it in the binary group as well. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 30/11/2012 8:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:15:37 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Will do - not a member, I don't think, but still like to see the
>> renderings. :)
>
> Nice work, did see it in the binary group as well. :)
>
Thanks, you might like the film that inspired the scene. “Oh! What a 
lovely war.”

You don’t need to be a member to look at the entries. But if you joined 
you could at least vote for them. We really need more participation or 
the site will die the death. :-(

There are less than half a dozen regular contributors (3 is less than 6 
is it not?). And I throw the odd image in now and then (odd being the 
operative word).



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/30/2012 3:45 PM, Stephen wrote:>
 > You don’t need to be a member to look at the entries. But if you joined
 > you could at least vote for them. We really need more participation or
 > the site will die the death. :-(
 >
 > There are less than half a dozen regular contributors (3 is less than 6
 > is it not?). And I throw the odd image in now and then (odd being the
 > operative word).
 >

I had totally forgotten about the TC-RTC!  If only I still had the free 
time of an undergrad I'd certainly participate.  Registering to vote is 
fortunately well within my time constraints though.

Post a reply to this message