Al Those Great Scientists Here

Donald Munro

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

>> Samuel Johnson [kicked a rock and said, said, "Thus do I refute
>> Berkeley]."

Robert Chung wrote:
> I know a guy who was told he had little chance of getting tenure here. He
> sought, received, and accepted an offer from that school down the
> peninsula. He said something very much like Johnson.

Did the Dean rock ?

Donald Munro

Jack Hollis wrote:
> I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions. You
> assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. How could you possibly know
> this in a way that is separate from your subjective experience? There is
> no such thing as objective reality.

Greg will tell you I passed my Turing test.

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On May 14, 3:56*pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 3:04 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> > *Samuel Johnson [...] said, "Thus do I refute Berkeley."
>
> I know a guy who was told he had little chance of getting tenure here.
> He sought, received, and accepted an offer from that school down the
> peninsula. He said something very much like Johnson.

Only with what the Times refers to as "an Anglo-Saxon
epithet," I hope.
Which school, UCSC, SJSU? Stanford? Going
from Berkeley to Stanford, some would consider that
a step down. While there are many junior colleges in
the US of A, there is only one junior university,
Leland Stanford Junior University.

http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/
(paragraph under "History")

Ben

Jack Hollis

On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:04:38 -0700 (PDT), "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

>> I'm afraid that even these most basic things are full of assumptions.
>> You assume that the earth, flat or not, is real. How could you
>> possibly know this in a way that is separate from your subjective
>> experience? There is no such thing as objective reality.
>
>Nevertheless, if you ride through a large enough pothole,
>you will bend your rims, and it does no good to explain
>to the pothole that it is merely a construct through which
>you approximate the true nature of roadness; the Platonic
>ideal of a road, after all, is flat.


Of course, the ancient Chinese realize that the idea of flatness can
only exist if there is also the idea of not flat. It's amazing that
two thousand years before the birth of Christ, the Chinese had already
anticipated the pot hole.

In much the same way, the idea of conservative can only exist in
contrast to the idea of liberal. If one ceases to exist, so does the
other. The question is, because they both need the other to exist,
does it really matter which one you are?

Paul G.

On May 15, 8:17 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> In much the same way, the idea of conservative can only exist in
> contrast to the idea of liberal. If one ceases to exist, so does the
> other. The question is, because they both need the other to exist,
> does it really matter which one you are?

To paraphrase your sophistry: In much the same way, the idea of living
can only exist in contrast to the idea of dead. If one ceases to
exist, so does the other. The question is, because they both need the
other to exist, does it really matter which one you are?

It matters to me.
-Paul

Donald Munro

Paul G. wrote:
> To paraphrase your sophistry: In much the same way, the idea of living can
> only exist in contrast to the idea of dead. If one ceases to exist, so
> does the other. The question is, because they both need the other to
> exist, does it really matter which one you are?

I've been in races where I seem to have flip-flopped between the two
states.

Robert Chung

On May 15, 1:03 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> > > Samuel Johnson [...] said, "Thus do I refute Berkeley."
>
> > I know a guy who was told he had little chance of getting tenure here.
> > He sought, received, and accepted an offer from that school down the
> > peninsula. He said something very much like Johnson.
>
> Only with what the Times refers to as "an Anglo-Saxon
> epithet," I hope.
> Which school, UCSC, SJSU? Stanford? Going
> from Berkeley to Stanford, some would consider that
> a step down. While there are many junior colleges in
> the US of A, there is only one junior university,
> Leland Stanford Junior University.

UCSC isn't "down the peninsula," it's "over the hill." I don't want to
say anything bad about SJS since they were kind enough to employ me
for a while but I wouldn't call it "down the peninsula" either; I
think I might describe it as "in the armpit of the Bay." Tenure
decisions are odd because they're mostly made at the department level
and, frankly, this guy was a poor fit for his department at Berkeley.
His move to the Junior University improved both departments.

Mark & Steven Bornfeld

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On May 14, 4:20 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bret wrote:
>>> You sound like the desperate defense lawyer in an extortion case where
>>> I was on the jury. The FBI had phone recordings of multiple explicit
>>> threats and tons of other evidence. The lawyer tried to build a
>>> defense out of minor inconsistencies elsewhere in the evidence and
>>> argued "How can you convict when we don't know what really happened"?
>>> I had the hubris to vote for conviction being the law and order
>>> liberal that I am.
>> Oh christ, now you're going to start Greg up on this.
>
> There was plenty of evidence to convict you of dumbassy

My spell check doesn't like this. It doesn't like dumbassery either,
but I do.

Steve


and so I did.
>
> I'm not the pettifogging dumbass who gave birth to Ben Franklin, but I
> was there when it happened.
>


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Jack Hollis

On Thu, 15 May 2008 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
<carbide@egine.com> wrote:

>On May 15, 8:17 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> In much the same way, the idea of conservative can only exist in
>> contrast to the idea of liberal. If one ceases to exist, so does the
>> other. The question is, because they both need the other to exist,
>> does it really matter which one you are?
>
>To paraphrase your sophistry: In much the same way, the idea of living
>can only exist in contrast to the idea of dead. If one ceases to
>exist, so does the other. The question is, because they both need the
>other to exist, does it really matter which one you are?
>
>It matters to me.

I don't think you can really say, one way or the other, until you're
dead. For all you know, being dead might be a lot better than being
alive.

Bret

On May 15, 2:48*pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
>
> <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >On May 15, 8:17 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> In much the same way, the idea of conservative can only exist in
> >> contrast to the idea of liberal. *If one ceases to exist, so does the
> >> other. *The question is, because they both need the other to exist,
> >> does it really matter which one you are?
>
> >To paraphrase your sophistry: In much the same way, the idea of living
> >can only exist in contrast to the idea of dead. *If one ceases to
> >exist, so does the other. *The question is, because they both need the
> >other to exist, does it really matter which one you are?
>
> >It matters to me.
>
> I don't think you can really say, one way or the other, until you're
> dead. *For all you know, being dead might be a lot better than being
> alive.

You make it sound as though there is a 50-50 chance that death is
better. It doesn't work that way.

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On May 15, 1:48 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
> <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >On May 15, 8:17 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >To paraphrase your sophistry: In much the same way, the idea of living
> >can only exist in contrast to the idea of dead. If one ceases to
> >exist, so does the other. The question is, because they both need the
> >other to exist, does it really matter which one you are?
>
> >It matters to me.
>
> I don't think you can really say, one way or the other, until you're
> dead. For all you know, being dead might be a lot better than being
> alive.

To get back on the topic of global warming, this argument
is a lot like the "Maybe global warming is happening, but
we need to study it for another 50 years before deciding
whether to do anything about it" argument.

Ben
Some studies claim that rich people aren't any happier
than poor people. If you haven't been both rich and poor,
how can you know which one is better?

On the other hand, Mae West said "I've been rich and
I've been poor, and rich is better." So if you are willing
to take on faith the testimony of an expert, there you go.
Now all we need is the testimony of someone who's been
alive and dead. Does anyone have Jesus's cell number?

Tom Kunich

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:3f2a74ed-01a9-4b74-bd20-80daf823cc9d@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> To get back on the topic of global warming, this argument
> is a lot like the "Maybe global warming is happening, but
> we need to study it for another 50 years before deciding
> whether to do anything about it" argument.

Of course we can't do anything about it and it is a natural process that has
a long historical record that you don't seem to want to believe.....

Bill C

On May 15, 5:03*pm, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > I don't think you can really say, one way or the other, until you're
> > dead. *For all you know, being dead might be a lot better than being
> > alive.
>
> You make it sound as though there is a 50-50 chance that death is
> better. It doesn't work that way.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How does it work? I don't know anyone who has any credible evidence
one way or the other, and even if being dead is simply non-existance
how is that not better in many cases?
Bill C

Paul G.

On May 15, 1:48 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G."
>
> <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >On May 15, 8:17 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> In much the same way, the idea of conservative can only exist in
> >> contrast to the idea of liberal. If one ceases to exist, so does the
> >> other. The question is, because they both need the other to exist,
> >> does it really matter which one you are?
>
> >To paraphrase your sophistry: In much the same way, the idea of living
> >can only exist in contrast to the idea of dead. If one ceases to
> >exist, so does the other. The question is, because they both need the
> >other to exist, does it really matter which one you are?
>
> >It matters to me.
>
> I don't think you can really say, one way or the other, until you're
> dead. For all you know, being dead might be a lot better than being
> alive.

I'll take my chances since I have it pretty good with the status quo.
Besides, I'm going to be dead for a lot longer than I'll have been
alive, so what's the rush? The marginal utility of more "dead time" is
insignificant.

I have a relative by marriage who's a Baptist minister and a bit of a
health nut. I've teased him about that- "The sooner you die the sooner
you get to heaven. So why are you taking those vitamins?" He just
grinned.

Now those Muslim suicide guys have the right idea. Their lives suck,
then *BOOM!* they're in paradise humping 72 virgins. It's no wonder
they have to have a "take a number" machine at suicide HQ.
-Paul