 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Now that I pictured that, I understand it better--the force of gravity is always pointing straight to the center from the object, even if you're a foot to the right from where you were a second ago--my visual image is reprocessed--thanks! (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iraqi official suggests Bush, Saddam duel (Oh, please!)
|
|
(...) Reading thru this article, as well as watching and reading a variety of media sources, is Bush just looking for a fight? Bush demands the inspectors be let in, they said the inspectors could come in, and now Bush is trying to change the rules. (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
Quoting David Koudys <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca>: (...) I think it'll feel like you're rolling down a steep hill, constantly crashing against the eastern wall. (...) uh, why? gravity is pulling straight down, your momentum is at 90 degs to the force - (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Would it be a $#*crash*#$ into the side or more of a 'rubbing' every once in a while to stop the sideways velocity. Considering that gravity is pulling straight down, and the original velocity from the surface spin is moving you east at (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) I would claim that the most correct answer to this problem in a math class is "I can't answer that question because insufficient information is given." A teacher who did give this problem though should award credit to anyone who provides an (...) (22 years ago, 3-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Well said Richard. What I would endeavour to change in the above, though, is, well, let me put it this way-- Having a debate where one side says, "This, this, this, this and this proves my point" (of course, all 'this''s are backed up by link (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) <snip> intellectual posturor! (...) This is what I meant by Spock phrasing it better--he said something like 'on a planet with positive gravity'--it's ST:TOS--when was the last time I caught one of those episodes? ;) I don't have to witness (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Y'know, I've actually thought about Scott's communciation style here a little bit and my general impression is that he, like many of us, tries to read what is here and make reasonably quick responses without getting too bogged down in the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Gosh, was it that many? The amusing thing is that in my very first post I noted that my answers to him were not entirely serious, nor did they particularly represent my own viewpoint. As to the "again?? this time??" I must note that I don't (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Actually I knew this -- but she also appears fairly regularly on the 700 Club so I still think she is an Xtian nutcase. We could certainly say she has enormous right-wing Xtian nutcase sympathies. Without looking it up, because I don't care (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) I was unclear--my bad. You're 100% correct that there's no real script for her show, so I should have been more precise in my accusation. It's been documented that the Rush Limbaugh radio show, for example, screens its callers, and I believe (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) A minor digression... You *do* need to make further observations to determine if it's true that the hammer would fall. Either you would need to make your deduction based on your witnessing of the descent of the hammer from your hand to the (...) (22 years ago, 2-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> (...) Please don't call me Shirley. How does one explain the movie "Airplane" to anyone else? It's one of my favourite "funniest of all-time" movies... it comes across like the Stooges, but (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Well you seemed to have figured that out (again?? this time?? (1) ) faster than I used to do.. only what, 40-50 posts in that thread between the two of you? Contrast that with me and he(2), we've managed to spin out hundreds of posts in one (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) It is faulty-- she is Jewish. -John (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Now there's a question worth pursuing... A local DJ (Derringer in the mornings on Q107--Toronto's Classic Rock station--shameless plug for my favourite radio station) decided to call up Harpo productions after the Emmy's to see if he could get (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Hahaha! Guilty. I'm amused that he seems ("seems": I don't read his posts any more, but I do note what message he is replying to) to be going back and arguing with old posts of mine since I'm not posting new ones to him. I mean, pathetic. (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) Hmmm, it does make one wonder doesn't it? On a certain level Dr. Laura *recreated* herself a while back as an Xtian nut/therapist. My memory may be faulty here, but I don't think she has ANY of the perceived credentials that one would normally (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
(...) And my point still stands--whether I'm citing West Wing, the DOI, the Bible or just common sense, what does it matter where the cite came from--if the cite is Just, proper and gosh darn it, makes alotta sense, why does it matter where it came (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> My point stands. You're welcome to get your ideas about reality from wherever you like, including from TV shows that force feed bias while pretending to be balanced... Just don't cite them in (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
