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

On 01/12/2012 5:36 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>
> 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.

That is good to hear. My time is very limited too. The current Challenge 
ends mid December leaving a fortnight to vote. You could also vote for 
the next Challenge topic as well, what ever takes your intrest from a 
list of books.
It would be a good idea to drop Thomas deG a mention in the "TC-RTC 
Forum: Want to become a member? Read this!" thread in irtc.general. So 
that he can look out for you.

We really need a bigger spread of votes.

-- 
Thanks
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:45:32 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> 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).

I thought once upon a time the only way you could vote was to have 
submitted something?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:41:35 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Want to become a member? Read this!" thread in irtc.general. So that he
> can look out for you.

Site seems to be down at the moment, BTW.

Jim

Post a reply to this message