 | | More Clinton (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this)
|
|
(...) Ok, I see now. (...) How is the sexual harassment law written? Why would Clinton's not 'believing' in that law make a difference? I can say I don't believe a wall is there and run in its direction and fall down and get a concussion. Just (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More Clinton (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this)
|
|
(...) You agree with me later, I think. But I want to ensure this point is clear. You're using the wrong sense of belief here. The sense I meant is "believe == think it's a good thing and support as just" not "believe == be aware of, and accept, the (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that it's possible to write this and assure that it won't be taken the wrong way, and maybe since I'm responding to something a month old, I should just let it go, but as you've already guessed, I'm not going to. (I'm going to (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Christopher L. Weeks wrote in message <36A7985D.6AF9AF4@cc...ri.edu>... (...) Spotted recently on a car: a "Darwin" fish getting eaten by a larger "God" fish. The saga continues. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? Read the (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) What _is_ a Darwin fish? or a God fish, for that matter? Jasper (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <36a8aa9f.144815446@...et.com>... (...) I'll start this from the beginning, in case you don't know the whole story. Christians use a fish symbol to represent Christianity. It looks kind of like this: <>< if your (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jesse Long wrote: <good fish explanation> (...) Well, there are two kinds. That one, which makes me chuckle, and another one which substitutes TRUTH as the word in the middle on the larger fish. THAT one makes me steam. The first is clever. The (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) Thanks. (...) Oh yeah, right, I think I remember seeing that once or twice now. (...) We here in the Netherlands almost never have bumper-stickers, so I guess we missed out :) (...) Any bets on when we will see a darwin fish being eaten by a (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jasper Janssen writes: [[Sniped some stuff]] (...) [[snipped the rest]] Why don't we put all the fish in the Schrödinger-box[1] and wait till tomorow to see which fish has survived? Mark [1] This is the box in which you put a cat and some poison and (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) None and all.. I don't think the nerve gas used in S's box is very specific :) And when we open it, there'll be a collapse of waveforms to none or all. [4] Jasper (...) [4] No, I don't know what I'm talking about [6] [5] Yes, you can have (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) I don't know... I think it's pretty safe to say we don't need to wait until we open the box to determine the state of the fishies existence...just listen for the sound of a satisified cat. :) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) The box is sound, light & air proof. In fact, the material used is impervious to any Electromagnetic radiation. Otherwise, the first particle/photon that it emitted and that would happen to collide with either the observer, or cause something (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) we (...) for (...) Sigh..I should have taken it to .fun I am well aware of the various aspects of the Shroedinger theorum, I was merely attempting some humor. Mea Culpa, it won't happen again.(1) 1: if this sounds a bit snide, that's because (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) <stuff> (...) Ohwell. Why can't I try to keep a straight face? Jasper (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) merely (...) So...if we put YOU in this box and a cup of coffee, there is no way we can tell wether you drank the coffee or not? [11] B-) Follow-up set to .fun (I hope..never tried it before) [11] or can we assume you will drink it?[12] [12] (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) I couldn't help myself [14], I had to try this follow-upthing myself. Sorry for the inconvinience[15] Mark [14] Actually I could, but I don't want to.[16] [15] Hitchickers Guide to the Galaxy [16] Confused yet? (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) As far as I understand the bos thing, while the state of things inside the box is not determined, we may assume that universal constants will apply. So it can be taken as read that I will drink the coffee. ;) James caffeine buzz & Lego - a (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) Actually, its: "We apologise for the inconvenience.", IIRC. "What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? For heaven's sake, mankind, it's only four light-years away you know. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jasper Janssen writes/wrote/has writen: (...) So sue me. :-) I read that book a couple of years ago and after my lsat move I can't find it anymore. (...) Okay, so YOU have my book? Greetsz, Mk (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
James Brown writes/wrote/has writen: (...) But now you just _asume_ you will drink the coffee. What if in the dark you can not find the cup or you spill the coffee? There are lots of possibilities possible in which you will not drink it (the (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) I dunno. I have a one volume editon of all five books, which can be had at (among others) V&D and Broese Wristers for about 25 guilders. I do seem to recall _buying_ my version, so I think it's not yours :) HTH. Jasper (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) Well, I got the same version. I didn't exactely buy it, though. A friend gave it to me (after he read it) (...) Okay, I'll believe you. Yes, I know, I am stupid that way...B-) (...) I know I shouldn't ask, but what the heck... What does HTH (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) Wow... I fooled him! <eg> (...) Hope this helps. (...) You a beta reviewer for Katmai? I didn't think it was officially out yet.. Jasper (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
Jasper Janssen writes/wrote/has writen: (...) Folled you in believing you fooled me! (if you can't convince them, confuse them!) (...) Yeah, this helps. Now just tell me what HTH means....wait..got it (shrinking myself in order to become invisible) (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Shroedinger and the coffee constant (was RE: something else)
|
|
(...) box (...) Ah, but it's not an assumption, except in the very extreme view that all theories are assumptions. Based on extensive empirical research, it has been determined that when a cup of coffee and I are placed in the same enclosed area (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
|
(...) err... Yeah. wahtever you say. (...) Uhuh. (...) And you got to take them home? Cool! Wanna pass it on? I Think I'd really love a review sample of P-III. Not being multiplier-locked, and all. Anyway, what Motherboard do they use? I thought (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Shroedinger and the coffee constant (was RE: something else)
|
|
James Brown writes/wrote/has writen: (...) area (...) will (...) rule, (...) in (...) considered (...) Is this known as the Theorem_of_James ? (...) do (...) Cheers! (...) is (...) Sooo... this is the way for you to always drink coffee? I just get (...) (26 years ago, 28-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
