 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Just for reference, I don't think "quoteth" is a word (TIMBW). Are you thinking of "quoth" perhaps? (...) Since you're on a laudable anti-postmodernist kick, I'll throw a PM word at you for your arsenal: Rhizome. In its basic meaning it (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Ok, that would eliminate the rotation. (...) Since your original problem statement assumed there was no problem with a molten core, I think it's also reasonable to assume the water isn't a problem (you can make a dam from all the earth you (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Iraqi official suggests Bush, Saddam duel (Oh, please!)
|
|
Pistols. Better chance of them both fatally wounding each other. So who is the challenged and has the choice of weapons? :-) (URL) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) If the point that still stands is "Everything in parenthesis was added by David", that is correct. If, however, the point that still stands is "and is incorrectly associated with the (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | I believe in IDIC (was Re: I don't "believe" in Australia (was Re: John Leo's opinion))
|
|
(...) It was Spocks way of saying human nature is as reliable as the forces of natural law. I thought that idea, though others might disagree, was quite astute. (...) <snip> Yes, also don't miss the "heart filter" that McCoy uses to filter out the (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I don't "believe" in Australia (was Re: John Leo's opinion)
|
|
(...) Actually, the phrase can be Googled and a WAV of it found fairly readily. The episode was "Court Martial" and Spock was comparing his confidence in knowing that if he let go of a hammer on a planet with positive gravity, he would know that it (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Never thought about the rotation--there was an H.G. Wells story about a guy that was granted a wish and his was for the earth to stop spinning--turns out that when the wish was mentioned, the earth stopped instantly anad everything that wasn't (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Thank you for the clarification, on rereading I see that they are your words, my apologies. Point still stands though. (...) A list neither IS nor ISN'T a sequence (or chain of inferences, note the difference). Further it neither IS nor ISN'T (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) I've wondered this in the past also. If the planet were not rotating, I think the answer would be that your analysis is correct. Note that you would be in a zero-G environment (or close to it) at the center assuming the Earth is close to an (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Bit of both, actually. 1 parent is Jewish, 1 is Christian. (...) Her Doctorate and masters et al are in Physiology, but her post doc work is in counselling and she is a licensed marriage, child & family counsellor in California. So (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Still a "Funny Girl"
|
|
(...) -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Everything in the *paragraph* was written by me and was *exactly* what I wanted to say with my first post about refuting an arguement by refuting one point--that by disputing one point of the list of evidence does not make *all* points null (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Yeah, they botched the case alright... Frankly, I don't know who did this double homicide -- nor does anyone else as aptly pointed out by Larry. O.J. looks good for it, but I can't see why a person of his apparent means would do something like (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Still a "Funny Girl"
|
|
(...) Scott, I think, has accepted that this is a bogus quote, if he ever even believe it in the first place. Sadly, some celebrities are less eager to check their sources: (URL) Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | I don't "believe" in Australia (was Re: John Leo's opinion)
|
|
(...) Was that from "The Alternative Factor?" I haven't seen much TOS in quite a while, so my memory may be faulty. The problem is that his statement as you quoted it had no boundaries, so we could only assume that it applied to the universe at (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Even worse than that--she's a nobody with a radio show and who passes herself off as an educated authority on the subject in which she pretends expertise. Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) David please do not mark up my words as you did in the next paragraph. It is confusing to the readership and extremely poor form. (...) Everything in parenthesis was added by David, and is incorrectly associated with the same inference. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Very nicely put, Larry... However, my point was outlined with the second reasoning you made--that given a list of claims, (FEF1 (blood), FEF2 (DNA), FEF3 (motive), FEF4 (whatever)... FEFn) and one of those claims was refuted, it does not mean (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I agree here. A bit of logic might help. If I assert: (-> == implies ) A -> B and B -> C and C -> D are all true , and thus A -> D is true and provide facts or evidence FAB in support of A -> B FBC in support of B -> C FCD in (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
Snipped for effect. (...) "Again" as in; you previously had it figured out, seemed to have gone through a patch just now where you didn't, and now you do have it figured out "again". NOT as in; you got into it with him before... Helps? (...) As far (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
