http://www.upworthy.com/you-have-nothing-to-fear-testifying-in-front-of-senator-warren-as-long-as-you-know-facts-woops?c=click

More ehh... I don't know... I'm an idiot testifying without any data at 
all...

Post a reply to this message

Am 13.09.2014 04:18, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
>
http://www.upworthy.com/you-have-nothing-to-fear-testifying-in-front-of-senator-warren-as-long-as-you-know-facts-woops?c=click
>
>
> More ehh... I don't know... I'm an idiot testifying without any data at
> all...

Hm... you already posted a link to the exact same clip, except that it 
was hosted at YouTube.

Also, while I do find some of the links interesting, I somehow feel 
uncomfortable with the way you present them - kinda like being 
force-fed, and it feels (at least to me) like you're turning this 
newsgroup into a political platform. I think I would feel more 
comfortable if you added some substantial comments of your own: There's 
nothing wrong with trying to start a discussion here, but this feels 
like you just want to sort of "evangelize", and I don't think this 
newsgroup is the right place for that.

As I said, I find most of those links interesting, but the way you hand 
them over to us /still/ makes me uneasy.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 04:43:22 +0200, clipka wrote:

> As I said, I find most of those links interesting, but the way you hand
> them over to us /still/ makes me uneasy.

If it weren't someone who's posted in this group regularly before, I 
would have tagged it as link spam, myself.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 13/09/14 03:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 04:43:22 +0200, clipka wrote:
> 
>> As I said, I find most of those links interesting, but the way you hand
>> them over to us /still/ makes me uneasy.
> 
> If it weren't someone who's posted in this group regularly before, I 
> would have tagged it as link spam, myself.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 

Indeed , Jim and Chris. I have already blocked this poster.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 13/09/2014 03:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 04:43:22 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
>> As I said, I find most of those links interesting, but the way you hand
>> them over to us /still/ makes me uneasy.
>
> If it weren't someone who's posted in this group regularly before, I
> would have tagged it as link spam, myself.
>

I agree.
@Saul, IMO you are being a bit too ..
I don't know what. But like Clipka it makes me uneasy. Obviously you 
feel very strongly about these things and having been a life long 
socialist for most of my life I sympathise and rail against injustice 
myself. I think that you are going a bit too hard on this for this 
newsgroup.

Life is a sair fecht.
(apologies for using Scots not English.)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> On 13/09/14 03:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 04:43:22 +0200, clipka wrote:
>>
>>> As I said, I find most of those links interesting, but the way you hand
>>> them over to us /still/ makes me uneasy.
>>
>> If it weren't someone who's posted in this group regularly before, I
>> would have tagged it as link spam, myself.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>
> Indeed , Jim and Chris. I have already blocked this poster.
>
> John
>
Fuck you.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> Indeed , Jim and Chris. I have already blocked this poster.
>
> John
>
Fuck you asshole

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 0:28, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Doctor John wrote:
>> On 13/09/14 03:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 04:43:22 +0200, clipka wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I said, I find most of those links interesting, but the way you hand
>>>> them over to us /still/ makes me uneasy.
>>>
>>> If it weren't someone who's posted in this group regularly before, I
>>> would have tagged it as link spam, myself.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Indeed , Jim and Chris. I have already blocked this poster.
>>
>> John
>>
> Fuck you.

This is a public service announcement:

You might not be aware of it, but this is a violation of the rules in 
this newsgroup, it could get you banned from all povray newsgroups.*

Your behaviour also does also not help in getting your point across.
I suggest that you apologize and restrict the number of times you refer 
to what others have done on obscure websites and simply try to make your 
point using your own words and in an orderly fashion.

Many of us are glad that at least there are some places on the internet 
that are free from profanities, trolls, porno, and spam. Please behave 
like a good guest in this community and keep it that way.
Thanx


*) As has been explained before, this newsgroup is not part of the 
general newsgroups of the internet jungle outside. It is hosted on a 
private server and only uses a standard protocol for everybody else to 
easily connect.


-- 
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

I'll address everyone in this message:

I can't believe the reaction of you people to my messages, I thought 
you'd take them with rational, skeptical and critical thinking, but 
you're taking them emotionally, "I'm uneasy", of course, that's the 
point, it's something fucking wrong with the World we live in and we 
should see that and at least discuss it, with off-line people and do as 
much as you can, even if it's just passing the news, so people get aware 
and that makes noticeable changes over time, are things of common 
interest not only for a certain Country but Humanity, I don't believe in 
nationalism, I consider myself a citizen of the World and as such my 
concern for their citizens.

Yes I'm using this a political platform, and why not? the Internet is 
open to everything and I think it's a great idea to share good and/or 
scientific ideas to solve all kinds of problems and to point out what's 
wrong, so we can see and do what we can, no matter how little, and it's 
our common wellbeing what's at stake, so if have the courage to get out 
of your "perfect little corner of the world", you'll see that the World 
is pretty much fucked up and the greedy 1% thrives and hopes for the 
indolence you manifest so abundantly, and allows them to try to control 
even more inhumanly our lives for a little bit more of unnecessary 
profit, even if it's in a self-destructive way as it is mostly.

I'm political in the sense of a scientific and rational distribution of 
resources, I don't care about power, left, right, center of some 
delusional political ideology, that fails miserably because of the 
Monetary System underlying to everything, specially when money people 
control the politicians, the democracy is an illusion, that's how big 
corporations in USA, sell nothing of their goods, like private jets, 
some having several and get bailout by their Gov, instead of foreclosure 
and give those corps to competent people or something, instead of just 
giving them billions for their fuck ups, normal people go live under a 
bridge maybe even prison, I don't know, for bankruptcy, how is that 
fair? that's BS, pure and simple. If resources are assigned rationally 
to each person, I'm pretty sure most if not all of them will work gladly 
to return the favor, to eliminate starvation, easily curable diseases 
and homelessness, so going in that direction requires to know what's 
wrong, so you can suggest or promote a 
project/movement/initiative/system with a educated opinion, that's it.

I've learned that Nature does everything in the most efficient way, so 
why waste words in lengthy reviews if I can summarize my POV in a few 
words? Why you say I didn't? the video I link, it's pretty much 
self-explanatory, and the title and article that video is in, there is 
no need much for me to write I think, just my opinion on it, and it's 
just trying to reason and have common sense about them, it's mostly 
informative, if you have something to comment, fine if not fine too. I 
think it's a public service to point out social injustice to other 
fellow humans, that's about it.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> This is a public service announcement:
>
> You might not be aware of it, but this is a violation of the rules in
> this newsgroup, it could get you banned from all povray newsgroups.*

No insults allowed? fine I'll take out the insults but I won't 
apologize, the guy deserves it.

> Your behaviour also does also not help in getting your point across.

I made a post for that purpose.

> I suggest that you apologize and restrict the number of times you refer
> to what others have done on obscure websites

obscure? are you that paranoid or what it's wrong with you? Have you 
ever heard the of 'humanitarian'? that¡s what all those sites are all 
about, and I'll do as I please, because of my freedom of thought and 
expression.

> and simply try to make your
> point using your own words and in an orderly fashion.

I did, and I explained this on the other post I made on this thread.

>
> Many of us are glad that at least there are some places on the internet
> that are free from profanities, trolls, porno, and spam. Please behave
> like a good guest in this community and keep it that way.
> Thanx

I am, I post things that are worth sharing, spam is the opposite, 
selfish ads for self-benefit without consideration to others.

> *) As has been explained before, this newsgroup is not part of the
> general newsgroups of the internet jungle outside. It is hosted on a
> private server and only uses a standard protocol for everybody else to
> easily connect.

I don't pretend to disturb the newsgroup but inform, I've seen somewhat 
interesting social articles, and I thought these would be also of 
interest but I get received with rejection instead of analyzing what I 
write and link.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:43:43 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> I can't believe the reaction of you people to my messages, I thought
> you'd take them with rational, skeptical and critical thinking, but
> you're taking them emotionally, "I'm uneasy", of course, that's the
> point, it's something fucking wrong with the World we live in and we
> should see that and at least discuss it, with off-line people and do as
> much as you can, even if it's just passing the news, so people get aware
> and that makes noticeable changes over time, are things of common
> interest not only for a certain Country but Humanity, I don't believe in
> nationalism, I consider myself a citizen of the World and as such my
> concern for their citizens.

Well, perhaps, but your replies to Doctor John certainly don't convince 
me of anything.

Those kinds of emotional outbursts don't impress and they certainly don't 
convince or help your case or cause.

There are plenty of reasons I didn't engage, but honestly, if those root 
posts had been from someone whose name I didn't even recognize, I would 
have considered them link spam and nothing more.  The only reason I 
reacted *at all* is because I remember you from being around here before, 
and those memories of you were kind.

But how seeing how you're approaching this, my opinion is, shall we say, 
somewhat lowered.

I find that when someone wants to discuss something, they tend to do more 
than just post a link to a story - they tend to include some thoughts of 
their own, some sort of personal interpretation of the content they're 
linking to.

You didn't do that - hence the comment about it looking like "link 
spam".  I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but that's what it looks 
like to me.

And your reaction to others saying that they've blocked you looks like a 
tantrum that I'd expect from a child.

Which makes me wonder if you're going to say anything that's worth my 
time to read, or if you're just going to swear at me for being honest 
about what I'm seeing.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 23/09/2014 23:29, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Doctor John wrote:
>> Indeed , Jim and Chris. I have already blocked this poster.
>>
>> John
>>
> Fuck you asshole

No. That is going too far.
I complain!

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 01:43, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> I can't believe the reaction of you people to my messages, I thought
> you'd take them with rational, skeptical and critical thinking, but
> you're taking them emotionally, "I'm uneasy",

You're entirely missing the point here.

I /do/ take the content you linked to with rational, skeptical and 
critical thinking.

The point here is the way you try to get "your" messages across.

And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical 
thinking: There is a certain gut feeling, developed from experience, 
that rings an alarm bell in me - a gut feeling that I partially 
understand, partially don't, but one thing I know is that this gut 
feeling is there for a reason. It is not something that has been 
instilled in me by my parents. It is not something I have been taught by 
some mentor. It is not something that I've adopted from some peer group. 
It is not something I've trained myself to. To the very contrary: This 
gut feeling is the result of a lesson I've learned, personally.


In a nutshell, this whole thing boils down to whether "good" ends 
justify "bad" means, and I think they don't. If you want to make the 
world a less "corrupted" place, using "corrupted" means gets you nowhere.

Now with "good" and "bad" I don't mean the concepts coined by our 
Christian heritage, and when I say "corrupted" I don't refer to the 
concept of corruption as understood in politics. I even go as far as 
saying I'm not talking about moral here, because moral is always 
subjective and emotional. I'm talking about some basal, plain, rational, 
non-judgemental "yup/nope, it's (un)desirable for this to be 
done/achieved/whatever".


So, as I said before: The point here is the way you try to get "your" 
messages across.

And those quotation marks delineate exactly the issue I have with it: 
 From all I read, I can only conclude that those are not /your/ 
messages. It is something you may have been instilled with by your 
parents, have been taught by some mentor, have adopted from some peer 
group, or have trained yourself to make your own - but at the end of the 
day these messages are still /not/ yours: You don't have any personal 
connection with them.

You may not want this to be true; you may not believe this to be true; 
and I may even be wrong about it; but it's that very lesson I've 
learned, personally, that has given me some very sensitive instinct to 
exactly this type of situation.


And I've also learned that evangelizing about someone else's message is 
- as far as "desirability to be done" goes - equivalent to spreading 
outright lies.

Yup, that's right: If you have been taught that E=mc^2, and have not 
done any toying around with this formula whatsoever to see what it does, 
where it comes from and where it is leading to, then whenever you tell 
someone else that E=mc^2, in a certain sense you're telling them an 
outright lie.

Why? Because you, as the one spreading a message, are responsible for 
the message, so it is your duty to verify that what you pass on is legit.

If you don't know whether you're spreading gold or horsecrap, you have 
two possibilities to deal with it: (A) make it clear to the audience 
that you don't know which one it is, or (B) hold your tongue.


As I said, you may not want this to be true; you may not believe this to 
be true; and I may even be wrong about it; but I have the strong feeling 
that you have no own experience whatsoever to back up the sources you're 
linking.

(And again, this is not about whether the message is legit or not - it 
is about the messenger not knowing.)


You may ask, why should (A) a messenger be responsible for the message 
he carries, if (B) anyone has the possibility to check for themselves?

 From my very own experience, I know that ignoring (A) is precisely what 
leads to mass delusions and stuff like the 3rd Reich, because (B) is an 
oversimplifying illusion.

Post a reply to this message

I've learn to be a person of reason and rational, skeptical, critical, 
logical thinking, because that's how scientists and reasoning people 
find how amazing Nature is through Science and that's IMO the best 
approximation to the truth.

I could never insult you for being honest, a rather rare commodity in 
such a cynic, hypocrite, unethical, semi-civilized at best society we 
live in, I appreciate it and you made it with reasoning, which I could 
never reject, let alone insult you out of it.

But you made a mistake: I made about 6 posts with links, and only the 
first 2 had no comments because I thought the title and its repetition 
in the link would have sufficed as such. As I wrote on another post, my 
intention is to give you news, to inform not really discuss, if you're a 
rational person, you'll see something is wrong. I like a rational and 
civilized discussion, but the links had an article where it was 
described and I just give the comment that was appropriated, none if 
that helps better to communicate the idea, as I did in the first 2.

I define asshole someone that in a very unconsidered way makes fast and 
stupid judgements , and that Doctor John was 1, because I had the best 
intentions when I came here to discuss, after a long while, and to 
inform you of interesting things, and I get that attitude, at the very 
least he's being stupid IMO, but yeah, is bad for the spirit of 
conversation to actually go so negative on someone I think, rather than 
just pointing out, and by spirit I mean the feelings and mood.

  I don't mind no-comments if the idea gets through.

I'm glad your memories of me were rather pleasant, my intention is t 
have a good time discussing, and you all should take things for what 
they are, not for what you think they are, because you and at the seems 
what everyone is doing.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 06:40, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I define asshole someone that in a very unconsidered way makes fast and
> stupid judgements , and that Doctor John was 1, because I had the best
> intentions when I came here to discuss, after a long while, and to
> inform you of interesting things, and I get that attitude, at the very
> least he's being stupid IMO, but yeah, is bad for the spirit of
> conversation to actually go so negative on someone I think, rather than
> just pointing out, and by spirit I mean the feelings and mood.
>
>   I don't mind no-comments if the idea gets through.
>
> I'm glad your memories of me were rather pleasant, my intention is t
> have a good time discussing, and you all should take things for what
> they are, not for what you think they are, because you and at the seems
> what everyone is doing.

I too remember you and remember the last image you posted. It distressed 
me greatly. I am glad that you are still with us. :-D

Please be aware that this is an international newsgroup and what might 
pass for a casual remark in America can be considered very offensive in 
other parts of the English speaking world.
If you had said to me what you wrote to the good doctor. You would be 
eating through a straw. That is how offensive I found it.

A quick link to illustrate this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28339497/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/throwing-shoes-blowing-noses/#.VCJcOBbk05c

Try being a little bit more laid back and not so intense and we will 
welcome your contributions.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

BTW, calling something obscure when it's not is an argument from 
ignorance, something that scientist won't suppose to do, right?

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> other parts of the English speaking world.
> If you had said to me what you wrote to the good doctor. You would be
> eating through a straw. That is how offensive I found it.

I will say to you what ever I want how ever I want if I see it fit and I 
can help it, you'd be realizing that in person accomplishing your 
physical violence threat is a lot harder than you think it might be, I 
guarantee you that.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 8:59, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I will say to you what ever I want how ever I want if I see it fit and I
> can help it, you'd be realizing that in person accomplishing your
> physical violence threat is a lot harder than you think it might be, I
> guarantee you that.
>

I disagree, sir. In a civilized world - and I still have the notion that 
we are living in such a world, and I do my utmost best to preserve such 
a world - insulting people is considered rude, low and stupid. In other 
words, it is not better than physical violence. So, no. You /cannot/ say 
what ever you want to others.

Discussion closed as far as I am concerned.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical
> thinking: There is a certain gut feeling

This is an oximoron that proves you wrong right there; so no you're not, 
you're having an emotional response, you don't even know what it is, and 
obviously haven't analyzed, but there you are trusting in it, which begs 
the question, isn't this an argument from ignorance?

My only bad did was insulting Doctor John, so don't unfairly generalize 
all my actions on a single mistake, the intentions were demonstrated by 
my acts, and I think they were good enough and I reconsidered my bad deed.

The reason we have common considerations to feelings through courtesy 
and manners is because it's moral, and it's the only reason, because we 
require to treated morally correct so we feel in a non-denigrating, 
safe-to-talk and mutual consideration environment, the core reason, 
being we don't want to be hated, perhaps loved a little but mostly given 
the opportunity of saying our peace with dignity, all those are 
emotional + intellectual reasons, but mainly emotional, reason? human 
dignity, the foundation of our morals and it's OK to demand them as 
natural Human Rights, hence my reconsideration of my emotional outburst. 
If you exclude all emotion you can't get to these moral ground 
intellectually alone because intellectually they're meaningless without 
emotional offense, instead without any emotion, you'll have perfect 
logic, you wouldn't even have a reason to be offended, because you 
evaluate on true or false, probable or improbable and a degree of it, 
you wouldn't even have the concept of offense, I think.

And that I'm not connected actually to the links I posted, that is were 
you're completely wrong, everything is connected to everything, Science 
indicates so, in Nature there isn't an independent system existing on 
its own completely, since we're in this Universe, everything affects us 
somewhat someway. For example there is this popular PhD Physicist that I 
don't recall his name, but he's popular in YouTube too,  that says 
according to Quantum Physics an electron that receives a bit of energy 
that electron can't be in the same state of energy than another, so in 
theory at least immediately across the Universe all electrons will shift 
their energy states to be different, something more intuitive is a 
jungle: everything interacts with everything, is simply obvious, Carl 
Sagan also noticed in his series Cosmos: In order to survive, Earth must 
be seen as a single organism, and an organism in war with itself is 
doomed, or somethings similar, Climate Change another fact proving this, 
so we're connected more than you think we do and most people are as 
shortsighted as you are.

That's why I wrote on another post that people should first analyze my 
post and then take it on its merit, not on what they think it is, and I 
made it easy for anyone to do that by avoiding unnecessary commentary, 
so you as many here are making mostly arguments from ignorance, which is 
exactly what it's not supported by science of reasonable people. You 
should go beyond your instinct, instinct is some kind of warning, nor an 
educated opinion.

I make sure that the ideas I spread are probably correct, I'd gladly 
accept a correction or discussion about it, as long as it's rational and 
not tending to be unnecessarily long.

I've no idea on some messages, but probably true, or maybe true, anyway, 
everything indicates so, it could be a scam, but I don't have a way to 
verify directly, I don't live in USA, most messages are from there, but 
anyway the ideas are the important, eventually they'll be validate for 
its merits, so it's worth to follow somehow.

If I want something to be true or believe something to be true is 
irrelephant, truth will remain to be, regardless, so it's truth the 
goal, hence the analysis to at least have a look and check for its 
validity in your ration opinion or educated opinion if you happen to be 
an expert.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '10269588_651070054989413_3964025147672603556_n.jpg' (25 KB)

Preview of image '10269588_651070054989413_3964025147672603556_n.jpg'

Thanks for your self-righteous closed-minded claim, very stupid IMO, 
because ironically you're doing exactly the opposite to what you just 
say you are, and helps confirm my point of semi-civilized.

Physical violence is not the same as other types of violence and 
insulting doesn't make you bleed or get your teeth out with pain or 
produce any effect similar to it, so it's not the same. Some people just 
deserve to be insulted, because what they do is insulting, but yes, you 
can insult in a civilized way without resorting to classical coursing 
words, which in deed lower the quality of the conversation, actually I 
can say whatever I want, I should not however, but if you go physical 
with me, believe me, insults will be the least of your concerns.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 11:20, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Thanks for your self-righteous closed-minded claim, very stupid IMO,
> because ironically you're doing exactly the opposite to what you just
> say you are, and helps confirm my point of semi-civilized.

Asking someone to be polite is not the same as being close minded.
And again the fact that your expression is limited comes from the fact 
that you are a guest on a private server. And it is not the content that 
is limited, but merely the ways you can express them. So stop answering 
friendly advise by insults. Be glad you have (had?) so many friends here.

So, don't answer this post, just think about this:
When a group of people independently take the time to send the message 
that the way you communicate is not bringing your points across then 
either the whole world is mad except you, or they might have a point.


-- 
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

Am 24.09.2014 07:40, schrieb Saul Luizaga:

> But you made a mistake: I made about 6 posts with links, and only the
> first 2 had no comments because I thought the title and its repetition
> in the link would have sufficed as such. As I wrote on another post, my
> intention is to give you news, to inform NOT REALLY DISCUSS, [...]
>
> I define asshole someone that in a very unconsidered way makes fast and
> stupid judgements , and that Doctor John was 1, because I had the best
> intentions when I came here to DISCUSS, [...]
>
> I'm glad your memories of me were rather pleasant, my intention is t
> have a good time DISCUSSING, [...]

[emphasis added]

There's some contradiction here.

The point is that the first quoted paragraph is how your posts came 
through here. What we're telling you right now is that your posts are 
missing the target audience here, who /do/ like to discuss stuff with 
someone coming through as an open-minded person, but do /not/ like to be 
fed news or information from someone coming through as a zealot evangelist.

Let me emphasize that I'm not calling you a zealot evangelist. I'm 
talking about how you come across, and I'm also oversimplifying and 
exaggerating a tad to better make my point.

In my personal case though, that tad is becoming smaller and smaller 
with every post you've made since I raised the issue. Which again isn't 
to say that you're a bad person - you're a person using ineffective 
means to reach the audience in this newsgroup. And rather than offend 
people openly telling you that they won't listen to you anymore, you 
should step back and rethink your means - at least if your primary 
intention is to get you message across, rather than just feel good 
knowing that you proclaimed it.

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 08:59, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Stephen wrote:
>> other parts of the English speaking world.
>> If you had said to me what you wrote to the good doctor. You would be
>> eating through a straw. That is how offensive I found it.
>
> I will say to you what ever I want how ever I want if I see it fit and I
> can help it, you'd be realizing that in person accomplishing your
> physical violence threat is a lot harder than you think it might be, I
> guarantee you that.

Ouch. You're really, really, absolutely, positively losing the very 
moral high ground you're fighting for.

Stephen isn't threatening you at all. He's expressing how he /would/ 
have reacted if you had said those words into his face, to illustrate 
how insulting your comment to Doc John came across for him.


Campaigning for a better world by throwing insults and being stubborn - 
that's like the proverbial fucking for virginity.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 15:53, clipka wrote:
> Stephen isn't threatening you at all. He's expressing how he /would/
> have reacted if you had said those words into his face, to illustrate
> how insulting your comment to Doc John came across for him.

Thank you. I am glad you pointed that out.
It is also a cultural thing considered funny.
Other like sayings from the Glasgow of my youth are:

Do you like hospital food?*

Can your mother sew? Well get her to stitch this. (With hand movements 
of drawing a knife across a face.)**
Not to be taken seriously.
But I fall foul of my own remark about cultural differences. For which I 
apologise.

* I actually said that to an actor when he tried to get me to go on a 
West End, stage (to be the butt of a joke). If I had realised that it 
was his first night in the part I would not have.
[Edit] He was Welsh so knew the context but the lost the plot. He did 
make a good recovery and told the rest of the audience what I had said. 
More power to his elbow.


** Did I hear someone say "Poison Dwarf***"? ;-)

*** German term for Scottish Solders in WWI

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.09.2014 11:12, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> clipka wrote:
>> And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical
>> thinking: There is a certain gut feeling
>
> This is an oximoron that proves you wrong right there; so no you're not,
> you're having an emotional response, you don't even know what it is, and
> obviously haven't analyzed, but there you are trusting in it, which begs
> the question, isn't this an argument from ignorance?

No, it's an argument from experience: Disconnecting yourself from your 
gut feelings is a bad thing to do, because you're disconnecting yourself 
from something that is part of you, and serves a purpose. The right 
thing to do is to accept their existence, and examine what's behind 
them. And that's exactly what I've learned to do.

> My only bad did was insulting Doctor John, so don't unfairly generalize
> all my actions on a single mistake, the intentions were demonstrated by
> my acts, and I think they were good enough and I reconsidered my bad deed.

In this whole discussion you're coming across as stubborn, which 
contradicts your self-description as rational, skeptical and critical. 
Especially, it shows a lack of self-criticism.

As a side note, I'm /not/ refering to your post to Doc John - that 
doesn't come across as stubborn, but as hot-headed and lacking control 
over your emotions - again not signs of a rational, skeptical and 
critical mind.

> The reason we have common considerations to feelings through courtesy
> and manners is because it's moral, and it's the only reason, because we
> require to treated morally correct so we feel in a non-denigrating,
> safe-to-talk and mutual consideration environment, the core reason,
> being we don't want to be hated, perhaps loved a little but mostly given
> the opportunity of saying our peace with dignity, all those are
> emotional + intellectual reasons, but mainly emotional, reason? human
> dignity, the foundation of our morals and it's OK to demand them as
> natural Human Rights, hence my reconsideration of my emotional outburst.

Reconsideration? I haven't seen much sign of that in your posts lately. 
This posting in response to mine is the very first sign that such a 
process /may/ be happening - but even here I only see it used as an 
opening move to stubbornness.


> And that I'm not connected actually to the links I posted, that is were
> you're completely wrong, everything is connected to everything,

You're missing my point again.

This "everything is connected to everything" is a hollow phrase, easy to 
use but difficult to explain and grasp to a point that someone can 
really and legitimately say, "yes, it is so - been there, seen it at 
work often enough to know it's not just some hollow phrase".

> Science
> indicates so, in Nature there isn't an independent system existing on
> its own completely, since we're in this Universe, everything affects us
> somewhat someway. For example there is this popular PhD Physicist that I
> don't recall his name, but he's popular in YouTube too,  that says
> according to Quantum Physics an electron that receives a bit of energy
> that electron can't be in the same state of energy than another, so in
> theory at least immediately across the Universe all electrons will shift
> their energy states to be different, something more intuitive is a
> jungle: everything interacts with everything, is simply obvious, Carl
> Sagan also noticed in his series Cosmos: In order to survive, Earth must
> be seen as a single organism, and an organism in war with itself is
> doomed, or somethings similar, Climate Change another fact proving this,
> so we're connected more than you think we do and most people are as
> shortsighted as you are.

Read this paragraph of yours again - you're referring to "this popular 
PhD" and "Carl Sagan", rather than arguing from own experience. You've 
chosen to believe it because people you assign authority to say so.


> That's why I wrote on another post that people should first analyze my
> post and then take it on its merit, not on what they think it is, and I
> made it easy for anyone to do that by avoiding unnecessary commentary,
> so you as many here are making mostly arguments from ignorance, which is
> exactly what it's not supported by science of reasonable people. You
> should go beyond your instinct, instinct is some kind of warning, nor an
> educated opinion.

Sometimes however it is a good thing to express such an instinctive 
warning to others - expressly noting that it is an instinct and not 
fully examined yet - even before having "gone beyond" it.

In some cases - as in this - you'll only be able to clearly grasp what 
this gut feeling is all about based on additional evidence, which comes 
in after you've expresed the instinctive warning.


> I make sure that the ideas I spread are probably correct, I'd gladly
> accept a correction or discussion about it, as long as it's rational and
> not tending to be unnecessarily long.

Okay, let me get this straight:

(1) You "make sure" - how do you do that? Do you just verify that people 
you assign authority to say so, or do you actually follow their thoughts 
and toy with them /yourself/? (*)

(2) You make sure they are "probably correct"? So you can't say for 
sure, and instead have to rely on... what? A mathematical confidence 
level? Or a gut feeling? Whatever the case, why don't you, when posting 
those links, let us know how much confidence you do have in it?

(3) You'd gladly accept a discussion about, as long as it's not "tending 
to be unnecessarily long"? This /shouts/ at me "I don't really want to 
be bothered with details that might pose the risk of me having to change 
my mind, but I won't admit this so I throw in the word 'unnecessarily' 
to hide behind, in case someone jumps at this sentence".


> I've no idea on some messages, but probably true, or maybe true, anyway,
> everything indicates so, it could be a scam, but I don't have a way to
> verify directly, I don't live in USA, most messages are from there, but
> anyway the ideas are the important, eventually they'll be validate for
> its merits, so it's worth to follow somehow.

So... you have "no idea", but consider them "probably true, or maybe 
true", because "everything indicates so"?

I suspect that you deem it "probably true" because "nothing indicates 
otherwise" - in other words, because you have a bias to believe it.


> If I want something to be true or believe something to be true is
> irrelephant, truth will remain to be, regardless, so it's truth the
> goal, hence the analysis to at least have a look and check for its
> validity in your ration opinion or educated opinion if you happen to be
> an expert.

As I said, the messenger, too, is responsible for checking the content 
for legitimacy, not just the recipient.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW, calling something obscure when it's not is an argument from 
> ignorance, something that scientist won't suppose to do, right?

I don't think you even understand what "argument from ignorance" means.

Did you pull a random fallacy name from your behind?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I can't believe the reaction of you people to my messages, I thought 
> you'd take them with rational, skeptical and critical thinking, but 
> you're taking them emotionally, "I'm uneasy", of course, that's the 
> point

It's arguably hard to take someone seriously who has in the past shown
belief in things like ghosts, deities, the supernatural, possibly in
aliens, and who has called skeptics "theists, Science being your God",
and who is now making several posts with nothing more than one link
each, and with provocative titles, giving a strong vibe of a conspiracy
theorist.

It doesn't help matters when you then start insulting people and using
swearwords, as well as using the "argumentative fallacy card" by throwing
names of completely random fallacies in situations where they don't fit
at all, seemingly to make yourself sound more intellectual and learned
(but ultimately achieving the exact opposite).

If you want to discuss about a certain topic, don't just make a post
with nothing but an URL. Explain your point, describe the topic, use
the URL as a reference, not as the main content. When writing, avoid
sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and avoid insulting people
simply because they disagree with you or dismiss you for behaving like
a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Also be aware of the environment you are in. If you go to a forum that's
about, let's say, knitting, and start throwing URL's to outlandish
political videos or websites that have absolutely nothing to do with
knitting, expect people to dismiss you. The context of the forum is
relevant.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

I'll guarantee that you didn't expect me to write again in this thread.
Just a couple of points:

On 24/09/14 10:12, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical
>> thinking: There is a certain gut feeling
> 
> This is an oximoron that proves you wrong right there

An oxymoron is a language construct with the purpose of emphasis - e.g.
'deeply superficial' or 'sadly laughable'. It is nothing to do with the
correctness or otherwise of an argument.

> which begs the question

'To beg the question' is to use the assumption of correctness of an
argument in order to prove that argument. In other words, circular
reasoning.

> My only bad did was insulting Doctor John, so don't unfairly generalize
> all my actions on a single mistake, the intentions were demonstrated by
> my acts, and I think they were good enough and I reconsidered my bad deed.

... but failed to apologise to the person you insulted.

Now, just a little point that's worth remembering: many of us who post
on this newsfroup are possibly older than you (I am 64, TdeG is 67 etc
etc) and age implies experience which in turn implies wisdom. If you
don't want to listen to me then at least take advice from the others.

John

PS I quote a piece from a memo sent by one of my cow-orkers to someone
who was determined to get at me:
'I am but an egg and my knowledge of such matters is as far below yours
as mine is above my colleagues'. But, whatever you do, don't f*ck with
the Doctor.'
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 23:30, Doctor John wrote:
> I am but an egg

Stranger in a strange land.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/14 23:53, Stephen wrote:
> 
> Stranger in a strange land.
> 

Yay, Heinlein :-)

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 00:21, Doctor John wrote:
> On 24/09/14 23:53, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Stranger in a strange land.
>>
>
> Yay, Heinlein :-)
>

And Mike really did make good soup. :-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 11:12, Saul Luizaga wrote:
everything interacts with everything, is simply obvious, Carl
> Sagan also noticed in his series Cosmos: In order to survive, Earth must
> be seen as a single organism, and an organism in war with itself is
> doomed, or somethings similar, Climate Change another fact proving this,
> so we're connected more than you think we do and most people are as
> shortsighted as you are.
>

Only, Carl Sagan got it wrong. The Earth is not at war with itself. The 
/Earth/ doesn't give a damn about the survival of /humans/ because that 
is what Carl Sagan implies in reality. It does what it has done for 
billions of years: evolve through constantly changing conditions, 
sometimes hot, sometimes cold, sometimes teeming with life, sometimes 
almost barren. If /one/ species (humans) suddenly (geologically 
speaking) make conditions unacceptable for them, that species just dies 
out and Earth goes on with business-as-usual. /That/ is the reality. 
What Carl Sagan said concerns Carl Sagan, and his fellow human beings.

Which does not mean we should do nothing, but we should not attribute 
human 'emotions' to a natural system.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> BTW, calling something obscure when it's not is an argument from
>> ignorance, something that scientist won't suppose to do, right?
>
> I don't think you even understand what "argument from ignorance" means.
>
> Did you pull a random fallacy name from your behind?
>
No, that's what you think, I don't think you understand the comcept neither.

Post a reply to this message

No, you're wrong and many people that write here write contradictions, 
fallacies, arguments from ignorance and when I point them out and demand 
mutual respect, I'm stubborn and insulting. I'm not the one that started 
with the threats, and I know what he meant and I wrote to him, that in 
person that would be a lot harder than he thinks, you don't want me 
pissed of on you, I'll probably do more damage than most people think is 
needed to be made.

You don't respect me, I'll tolerate little that attitude before I 
disrespect back, I don't care if that doesn't help make a better World, 
don't disrespect me, or face consequences, simple.

Post a reply to this message

I mean, depending on the type of disrespect, it it is physical I'll 
return in kind, and so on.

Post a reply to this message

If it wasn't serious, for sure wasn't indicated in anyway, and your 
fault is that that you thought I would understand it somehow even when 
you probably don't know where I'm from, and for my writing you should 
have deducted I'm not from UK/USA and not taken that ambiguous joke ahead.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/14 10:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> If it wasn't serious, for sure wasn't indicated in anyway, and your
> fault is that that you thought I would understand it somehow even when
> you probably don't know where I'm from, and for my writing you should
> have deducted I'm not from UK/USA and not taken that ambiguous joke ahead.

Of course we know where you're posting from. Just look at the headers in
your post and do a reverse DNS look-up.

In your header is NNTP-Posting-Host: 190.186.125.5 and a quick use of
the host command gives:
5.125.186.190.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer
dynamic-ip-adsl-190.186.125.5.cotas.com.bo.
So you are posting from Bolivia. Simples

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Discuss if the case arrived on my posts, but mostly inform and I would 
discuss on other people's post of course, so if you don't jump to 
conclusions as you did, you can easily see that this is a possibility.

I'm not missing the target, that's what you think, the target is people 
that can read, write and think.

Oversimplifying and exaggerating are too ways to miss grossly to hit the 
point with precision, and therefore not efficient, efficiency what 
Nature tell us to be if possible 100% of the time, the path of least 
resistance and more direct interaction, we can see this on the evolved 
creatures, how they solved issues that engineers and scientists take as 
a lessons, so we should try for this and not the opposite, the best 
highlight is to be exact, at least to target intelligent people, IMO. As 
Einstein said: "explain simple, not simpler than that", or something 
similar.

I understand your points, you're simply wrong or misguided as I have 
pointed out if any. I'm using reason, and IMO good enough to explain my 
points in a clear, simple, with mutual respect and reasonable way, I 
haven't seen an indication by anyone of the contrary except for the 
insult which I reconsidered, and there will be closed-minded people that 
are not willing to accept that their "perfect little corner of the 
World" isn't such, so I'm not going to waste time in reaching 
unreasonable people, I made a mistake in giving Doctor John too much 
attention.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 10:00, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> If it wasn't serious, for sure wasn't indicated in anyway, and your
> fault is that that you thought I would understand it somehow even when
> you probably don't know where I'm from, and for my writing you should
> have deducted I'm not from UK/USA and not taken that ambiguous joke ahead.

You are quite right and I apologise, unreservedly.
It was said in haste.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I thought about it, it took my 2 seconds, both are possibilities, for 
example a myth like religion is false, because better thinking and 
methods debunks it, that doesn't mean that the few atheist that were 
tortured/killed were crazy/wrong, it's about reasoning and seeing which 
is more probable, I have, and will as long as I can. I'm always glad 
about friendship that comes through, which I consider as true friendship.

Post a reply to this message

BTW When I call something stupid is because I deemed so after reasoning, 
not for the purpose on insult, private server or not, and probably I 
give an explanation why if it's probably not obvious.

Post a reply to this message

And I accept your apology the same way.

Post a reply to this message

So you can reason... now use it on my post you rejected.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 10:42, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> BTW When I call something stupid is because I deemed so after reasoning,
> not for the purpose on insult, private server or not, and probably I
> give an explanation why if it's probably not obvious.

FYI The English language is unforgiving with things like that. I believe 
French is a more diplomatic language.
But we are using English here. :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 10:39, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I thought about it, it took my 2 seconds, both are possibilities, for
> example a myth like religion is false, because better thinking and
> methods debunks it, that doesn't mean that the few atheist that were
> tortured/killed were crazy/wrong, it's about reasoning and seeing which
> is more probable, I have, and will as long as I can. I'm always glad
> about friendship that comes through, which I consider as true friendship.

Well the problem with most religions is that they rely on Faith which is 
outside of science. So no one can win.
You can prove something forever but if the other person believes (for no 
other reason that he believes) you will not be believed. And your proof 
dismissed.
Also the established religions have a lot of wealth and power from long 
ago. They are strong.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/09/2014 10:51, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> And I accept your apology the same way.

We are friends?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25-9-2014 12:02, Stephen wrote:
> On 25/09/2014 10:42, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> BTW When I call something stupid is because I deemed so after reasoning,
>> not for the purpose on insult, private server or not, and probably I
>> give an explanation why if it's probably not obvious.
>

But that is assuming your reasoning is true. There may be several 
solutions or your reasoning might be false. In that sense another 
opinion is never 'stupid'.

> FYI The English language is unforgiving with things like that. I believe
> French is a more diplomatic language.
> But we are using English here. :-)
>

True indeed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

What part of "don't answer this post" did you not understand?

On 25-9-2014 11:39, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I thought about it, it took my 2 seconds, both are possibilities, for
> example a myth like religion is false, because better thinking and
> methods debunks it, that doesn't mean that the few atheist that were
> tortured/killed were crazy/wrong, it's about reasoning and seeing which
> is more probable, I have, and will as long as I can. I'm always glad
> about friendship that comes through, which I consider as true friendship.


-- 
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

Am 25.09.2014 11:39, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> I thought about it, it took my 2 seconds,

Ouch.

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.09.2014 13:14, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 25-9-2014 12:02, Stephen wrote:
>> On 25/09/2014 10:42, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> BTW When I call something stupid is because I deemed so after reasoning,
>>> not for the purpose on insult, private server or not, and probably I
>>> give an explanation why if it's probably not obvious.
>>
>
> But that is assuming your reasoning is true. There may be several
> solutions or your reasoning might be false. In that sense another
> opinion is never 'stupid'.

... plus, labeling an opinion as "stupid" is usually taken to imply that 
only "stupid" people can be of that opinion.

If it's "probably not ovious" why an opinion is "stupid", then how can 
it be "stupid" in that sense?

Post a reply to this message