Am 24.01.2014 22:52, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/23/2014 2:23 PM, clipka wrote:
>> But that's exactly the point: How confident someone is about the
>> existence of a supreme something /is/ painted with personal desire,
>> fears, subjective observation, and all sorts of other things.
>>
> Well, I think my point is, there isn't going to be a lot of people
> managing to dither themselves into a perfect state of, "I think the odds
> are 50:50." Not unless they are doing it as a hypothetical, for some
> silly assed equation. They are going to be on one end or the other, and
> the gap between, if they ever do reach it, isn't one they will be on for
> very long. Its kind of like a rickety rope bridge, or a narrow beam.
> Sane people are not going to stay on it longer than necessary, before
> either deciding that its not worth it to cross, or getting to the other
> side as fast as feasible.

What you're forgetting about is the abundance of people who think there 
might be some supreme something, but don't equate that to the guy from 
the Bible.


> Part of the problem, imho, for the believer side of the mess though is
> that there is some damn idiot with fog machine, on their side, making it
> impossible to see "if" there is something on the other side worth
> getting to, and his partner is describing all the horrible monsters they
> will find when they get there.

That's a serious problem with various religions, indeed. But that's 
nothing new.

Post a reply to this message

On 23/01/2014 9:25 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.01.2014 21:02, schrieb Stephen:
>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> Am 23.01.2014 11:23, schrieb Stephen:
>>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>>>> a criminal
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not as much of a criminal as someone who starts a sentence with a
>>>> lower case
>>>> letter. :-P
>>>
>>> ... or someone who calls an article and a noun a sentence, for that
>>> matter. :-P
>>
>> Have you not heard of a "minor sentence"?
>>
>> A sentence can consist of only one word. Not uncommon if it is an
>> answer. :-P
>> ;-)
>
> Darn, why do I feel out-nitpicked now? :-)
>

<Cue: Fafner and Fasolt's Leitmotif. >

http://youtu.be/Q1-ILVJxQLg

<Bows then curtsies>


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/01/2014 10:49 PM, andrel wrote:
>>
> Still if, I wanted that to be a sentence I would have used an uppercase
> first letter *and* a full stop.
>

Come on. You don't even use an upper case letter in your name. So how 
can we believe that? :-P


> In fact this was short for
>
> a criminal
> b insecure
> c not fully brainwashed
> d all of the above
>

Nice one. :-)

> (or may be it wasn't)

Even nicer. :-D


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25-1-2014 8:21, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/01/2014 10:49 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>
>> Still if, I wanted that to be a sentence I would have used an uppercase
>> first letter *and* a full stop.
>>
>
> Come on. You don't even use an upper case letter in your name. So how
> can we believe that? :-P

Because it is not my name? In fact it was my login name on machines so 
old that names were still single case only.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

> <Cue: Fafner and Fasolt's Leitmotif. >
>
> http://youtu.be/Q1-ILVJxQLg
>
> <Bows then curtsies>

We are going to hear that soon live again. The Ring-cycle is going for 
the last time in the Audi/Haenchen version in Amsterdam next month.




-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2014 12:28 PM, andrel wrote:
>
>> <Cue: Fafner and Fasolt's Leitmotif. >
>>
>> http://youtu.be/Q1-ILVJxQLg
>>
>> <Bows then curtsies>
>
> We are going to hear that soon live again. The Ring-cycle is going for
> the last time in the Audi/Haenchen version in Amsterdam next month.
>

I am quite envious. (I note that the website for the theatre has 
Saturday's date wrong.)

Occasionally Covent Garden will do a cycle over a weekend, starting on 

and Siegfried in the evening.
I have done that twice and came away shell-shocked. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2014 12:21 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 25-1-2014 8:21, Stephen wrote:
>> On 23/01/2014 10:49 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>>
>>> Still if, I wanted that to be a sentence I would have used an uppercase
>>> first letter *and* a full stop.
>>>
>>
>> Come on. You don't even use an upper case letter in your name. So how
>> can we believe that? :-P
>
> Because it is not my name?

Well, what do you know. And for all these years I thought it was.

"The name Andrel is of English origin."

The meaning of Andrel is "strong, manly, brave".

To continue the theme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtqAwUVl00&feature=share&list=PL78TsyiiZjhHuIpSyDkJVgptMDvnJoauu&index=1

> In fact it was my login name on machines so
> old that names were still single case only.
>
>

That did cross my mind but since I did not say it...

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25-1-2014 15:01, Stephen wrote:
> On 25/01/2014 12:21 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 25-1-2014 8:21, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 23/01/2014 10:49 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Still if, I wanted that to be a sentence I would have used an uppercase
>>>> first letter *and* a full stop.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Come on. You don't even use an upper case letter in your name. So how
>>> can we believe that? :-P
>>
>> Because it is not my name?
>
> Well, what do you know. And for all these years I thought it was.
>
> "The name Andrel is of English origin."

That is the first time someone pointed out that it may in fact be a 
genuine name. Though the jury seems not to be out on whether it is a boy 
or a girl name.
Andrel is of course derived from the greek word for man (or possibly in 
some other ancient languages too).

cyberspace and e-mail (including p.o-t) I prefer andrel or Andrel.
Other common variants are Andrew (my name at the IEEE), Andrei (numerous 
people that can not read very well, or prefer something more common), 

is not on a general keyboard), AndreL (someone who thinks he understands 
were the name comes from, but doesn't), and occasionally Anderlecht 
(autocorrect). And then there are the nicknames by family that are 
derivatives from my name.

> The meaning of Andrel is "strong, manly, brave".

Indeed, because of it's non English origin.


> To continue the theme:
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtqAwUVl00&feature=share&list=PL78TsyiiZjhHuIpSyDkJVgptMDvnJoauu&index=1
>
>
>> In fact it was my login name on machines so
>> old that names were still single case only.
>>
>>
>
> That did cross my mind but since I did not say it...

At least you were aware that I am a modern fossil.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2014 6:43 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.01.2014 22:52, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>> On 1/23/2014 2:23 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> But that's exactly the point: How confident someone is about the
>>> existence of a supreme something /is/ painted with personal desire,
>>> fears, subjective observation, and all sorts of other things.
>>>
>> Well, I think my point is, there isn't going to be a lot of people
>> managing to dither themselves into a perfect state of, "I think the odds
>> are 50:50." Not unless they are doing it as a hypothetical, for some
>> silly assed equation. They are going to be on one end or the other, and
>> the gap between, if they ever do reach it, isn't one they will be on for
>> very long. Its kind of like a rickety rope bridge, or a narrow beam.
>> Sane people are not going to stay on it longer than necessary, before
>> either deciding that its not worth it to cross, or getting to the other
>> side as fast as feasible.
>
> What you're forgetting about is the abundance of people who think there
> might be some supreme something, but don't equate that to the guy from
> the Bible.
>

No, I am not forgetting that. No one has *ever* come up with a coherent 
description of what that thing would be, what its attributes would be, 
etc., without relegating it to something untestable, which, in context, 
means also a) irrelevant, b) undetectable, and c) unable to have any 
verifiable effects. You can't get around that. Either it effects the 
universe, and therefor is detectable, or it doesn't, in which case its 
even less sensible than string theory, which at least "can" describe 
mathematically plausible universes, even if the exact formula for this 
one hasn't yet been teased out.

They can think this all they want, and, in their case, most of them are 
not trying to attribute a set of absurd moralistic rules, which we "have 
to follow". Mind, "most". There are still some that make the 
incomprehensible argument that such an entity invisibly, and 
undetectably, without somehow violating physical laws, or mathematical 
ones, in any way we notice, "intends" everyone to act in some way that 
is.. mysteriously similar to a certain guy from the Bible.. But, most of 
them don't, unless its being used as a bate and switch, to defend belief 
in the latter anyway, by trying to pretend that the former is the same 
thing somehow.

In any case.. It just isn't a coherent argument. Its like someone 
suggesting that a kids football game has a strange, invisible, referee, 
because they somehow managed to actually negotiate the rules, without a 
visible one. I mean, its an "undetectable" referee, but.. just look how 
close to the rules they are playing!

Usually this also comes with stupid BS like "fine tuning" arguments, and 
various other absurdities, many of which have the same, equally absurd 
conclusions. I mean, after all, if an invisible god of quantum mechanics 
"fine tuned" the universe, why would they fine tune it so mere humans 
could break the earth, right? Or, why wouldn't he/she/it just twiddle 
subatomic particles, to stop it from happening? I don't see getting rid 
of the bearded dude as removing the idiocy from the argument that a 
"creator" wouldn't have either rigged the deck, and/or, be magically, 
undetectably, to the extent of somehow making all changes conform so 
precisely to predictions that they don't cause massive violations of 
basic math, changing the number on the cards, to get what he wants. Its 
just... the total lack of evidence that this is happening that is kind 
of.. problematic. lol

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2014 4:22 PM, andrel wrote:
> At least you were aware that I am a modern fossil.

There are a few Trilobites in these waters. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message