From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 19: 1:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2BA37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C0A43E72 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:01:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0362.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.199.107] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pfly-0001KN-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:01:31 -0700 Message-ID: <3D814650.C22F6ED8@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:58:40 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209130047.g8D0lK162048@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > You didn't specify the plurality or singularity of your reference > to "life" in your original statement. Attempting to move to the > singular form now, once the misunderstanding is done, can only > be your attempt to demonstrate superiorty even in the absence of > such a contest. "the floor of the stock exchange" isn't alive, the people standing on it are. > > My refutation was of the statement prior to the conjunctive comma. > > Thus ignoring anything after it. Yes; that's how conjunctive statements work: statement_1 && statement_2 There's no need to evaluate statement_2, if statement_1 is false, even if statement_2 does a "read". > >> I think it demonstrates incredible arrogance, to say you can > >> act but you don't. It certainly isn't tolerance. > > > > I posted the calculus of non-repudiation which could be implemented; > > And this is relevant to anything but your arrogance because...? It proves that it is not arrogance to believe that I can act. Would you have preferred that I stated that you thinking it doesn't make it true? > You refuse to deal with the assertion that it is common sense to > ignore something you don't like, citing a bunch of mathematical > hogwash instead of using simple words to explain your position as to > why this is not true. On the contrary. I agreed with you very early on. I will do so again, so you can quit beating this dead horse: I agree that it is common sense to ignore something you don't like. Now you can agree with a statement of mine: there exist people who can make valuable contributions, but who do not always exhibit common sense. > We aren't talking about Schelling points, it's irrelevant to consider > game theory, try demonstrating your own principles by explaining in > simple terms why you won't deal with this one issue. I have dealt with the issue before, and I have just dealt with the issue yet again. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message