### Apollo BBS Archive - September 15, 1990

    End of the Universe Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 1506
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 05:21:22

    Rod, I sometimes get the feeling that there is a lot more to you than meets
    the eye.  Not that what meets the eye isn't enough; you're easily one of the
    most interesting, memorable, and in some ways rather sophisticated
    individuals gracing Apollo.  But this Rod Williams persona you affect, if it
    be an affectation, obscures a greater entity behind the facade.
    But then, that's its entire purpose, isn't it?

    Message: 1507
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: mail/rod
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 10:50:41

    I think the idea of a S&M god evolved around the same time man learned to
    make orgaized war where whole populations were wiped out. Man needed an
    excuse for this rotten behavior, so he invented the appropriate god for this
    purpose. Prior to this time, man didn't make war because he was too busy
    worshipping fertility gods and enjoying the good times that the fertility
    gods gave to man. Then along came YWHW and Joseph and wiped out a bunch of
    these fun-loving heathens for their own good, for these folks couldn't stand
    to see other folks enjoying themselves. This attitude {continues unto this
    day.

    Message: 1508
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Jeff/Roger
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 14:17:35

    Turn on, tune in, drop out. -Timothy Leary, Harvard Professor, circa 1968

    Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 69582
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/magnetic poles
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 05:00:11

    I don't know.  They used to assume that the Earth had a magnetized
    nickel-iron core (making up 1/3 of its mass) which was for some reason
    magnetized.  Then they decided that temperatures at the Earth's core must
    keep it liquid and therefore well above the Curie point (so that the core
    could not be ferromagnetic), though personally I think that pressure is so
    great there that even great temperatures would not suffice to liquidize the
    core.  I also think this might prevent the dislocation of the magnetic
    domains.  Then they came up with the concept of paramagnetism, which is only
    noticeable with regard to very strong magnetic fields, and diamagnetism,
    ditto.

    Quite frankly, I think this is all a tremendous waste of time.  As I have
    been saying, it is not the job of science to explain, but to describe and
    predict, to represent and classify.

    Message: 69583
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: explanations
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 05:05:00

    When Newton invented his mechanics, he created theories representing,
    classifying, and predicting experimental evidence.  He did pretty well
    describing certain motions.  When it came time to explain their underlying
    reality, however, he fell back on concepts which included, among other
    things, absolute rest and absolute motion.  But this is useless.

    When Einstein came along, he largely accepted Newton's empirical formulae,
    but gave them all vastly different explanations.  All motion is now
    described as relative.  Does it make any difference to the formulae
    describing the motions whether anything is "really" fixed and at rest or
    not?
    Now according to the special theory, it is impossible to measure "absolute
    motion."  Any observer has the privilege of considering himself at rest, and
    all frames of reference are equally valid.  But when we consider non-uniform
    motion (outside the scope of the special theory) the possibility arises that
    this is not so.  And this is a problem.  Because if one can determine
    absolute motion from the nature and size of inertial effects, there goes
    relativity down the tubes.  How did Einstein deal with this?

    Let's use some examples from "Relativity: The Special and the General
    Theory" by Albert himself.  In the case of uniform motion, in his example
    a man inside a train moving at a constant velocity relative to the Earth,
    Einstein preserves special relativity by noting that it is equally
    justifiable to consider that the embankment is in motion relative to the
    train as it is to consider the train in motion relative to the embankment.
    (see pg. 59).  But what happens if the brakes are put on and the man feels
    a forward inertial pressure?  To keep the man from inferring absolute motion
    from this, Einstein in his general theory claims that it is equally valid
    to consider that "My body of reference (the carriage) remains permanently
    at rest.  With reference to it, however, there exists (during the period of
    application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards
    and which is variable with respect to time.  Under the influence of this
    field, the embankment together with the Earth moves non-uniformly in such a
    manner that their original velocity in the backwards direction is
    continuously reduced."  (pg. 70)
    Now, I do not intend to belittle Einstein, but I find this explanation in
    terms of a mysterious temporary coincidental field, to be supremely
    embarrassing.  And what does it matter?  Does it change the formulae
    describing motion whether motion is relative or absolute?  No.  It only
    matters with regard to the superfluous explanations of the nature of
    motion.

    Now, according to this, the Earth might actually not be rotating, and the
    universe may be rotating about it.  After all, if we could say absolutely
    that the Earth were "really" rotating, then the keystone of relativity, the
    notion that no form of motion is special in any absolute sense, is yanked
    free, and relativity (the explanation part, at least) comes tumbling down.
    So in fact by this explanation, we could just as validly assert that the
    equatorial bulge is caused by the gravitational effects of the distant
    bodies of the universe as they spin about our fixed Earth (the Fitzgerald
    contraction would affect relative time, so that their speed might remain
    less than that of light), as by our assertion that the Earth is rotating
    and that centrifugal "force" (or whatever) is the culprit.  So maybe Ptolemy
    *was* right.

    My point in all of this?  Science should leave ontology to metaphysics.

    Message: 69586
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff/Grains
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 05:31:42

      Yeah, I read "Reading the Numbers", too, and think that the author made a
    mistake there, and somewhere else, too (but it was a while back, so I forget
    what the other was).
      Anyway, the avoirdupois pound is supposed to be 7000 gr, and the ounce one
    sixteenth of that.  Both systems use the same size grain.  (And the
    apothecaries' weight system has the same size pounds and ounces as troy, but
    from there down they're divided differently.

              We all live in a   ____nhnn________   yellow subroutine

    Message: 69587
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Jeff/Moses &c
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 05:34:29

    Q:  Where was Moses when the lights went out?

    A:  In the dark.

    Q:  Who wrote Mozart's 37th Symphony?

    A:  Franz Josef Hayden.  It was mistakenly attributed to Mozart for a time,
        but the error was detected, and now records of Mozart's symphonies don't
        include the 37th.

              We all live in a   ____nhnn________   yellow subroutine

    Message: 69588
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Beck/Capitalism
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 05:35:44

      Does capitalism work?

      Does communism work?

              We all live in a   ____nhnn________   yellow subroutine

    Message: 69589
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Steve/CapComm
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 05:48:02

    I always wanted to tattoo "capitalism" and "communism" on my hands, one word
    on each hand and the letters individually on the back of each finger, above
    the middle knuckle, like Robert Mitchum did in some old movie where he plays
    a psychopathic preacher, except that his tattoos say "LOVE" and "HATE."

    Problem is, I don't have enough fingers.  I briefly considered a
    continuation on my toes, but decided that was stupid, and instead settled
    for a big flaming skull on my forearm.

    Message: 69590
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Politics
    Subject: 3rd party?
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 06:02:28

     I heard on talk radio yesterday that some of the sore losers, headed by
    Jerry Gillespie, are considering a third party so that the "disenfranchised"
    voters will have a choice. Gee, I wonder who they'll run for governor! Could
    it be the other sore loser, who said that he would back Symington because he
    is only 80% catastrophe, whereas Goddard is 100%?
     What a wonderful way to assure a Goddard victory in November! Split the
    already fractured Republican party even more! What a bunch of geeks!

    Message: 69591
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 06:06:46

     There is but one Christ, the GOd/man, Christ Jesus. There is not one big
    one and a bunch of little ones running around. We can be Christ-like if we
    give Him our lives and live by His precepts and example, but we can never,
    ever, be Christ, of any size.
     Been hanging around Middleton too long?

    Message: 69592
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Roger/mud
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 06:09:31

     I coldn't care less what the Repulsive or Gazoo have to say. I would like
    to hear what the candidates have to say, about the issues, not about each
    other. I hope that the first shot out of Symington's gun does not set the
    tone for the campaign. I think that we have had enough of Mechamite politics
    to last us for a long time.

    Message: 69593
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff / Syrup
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 07:10:05

       Why would they call it coca-cola syrup if it's NOT coca-cola syrup? I
    believe the formula is probably more like the syrup USED to be than it is
    now as a soft-drink component.

    Message: 69594
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod on Ann
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 07:26:23

       Rod, in this matter it is not necessarily an open discussion that I am
    looking for. Now, before you say anything, understand that despite the fact
    that my intention was more a discussion between Ann and myself, I did
    attempt to conduct it in the public forum, in case anyone had anything
    constructive to add, one way or the other. But, with the exception of a few
    comments from Roger, this has not been the case.
       But then again, why should I make this a matter for public discussion
    when you yourself have already expressed an interest in discrediting my
    responses to Ann before I've even written them?
       In short, I feel it is best for me to continue to conduct my discussion
    with Ann in this matter [that is, mail]. As for Ann, I don't think that you
    have anything to worry about (indeed, that it were your responsibility to do
    so). Ann is her own person, with serious questions asked. She is also her
    own person, and can make decisions for herself.

    Message: 69595
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod on Daryl
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 07:40:34

    I cetainly can't condemn Daryl if he does post '1 in 33'! I act like I just
    learned how to upload myself! Ha.
    Really though, the reason I put '1 of 7' is because the other members, not
    interested, can just use the skip key. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69596
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on Rod
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 07:43:08

    Sorry Daryl to burst you bubble, but Rod is a true athiest! I don't even see
    a smigeon of Agnostic in him - maybe when he will state 'I don't know'
    perhaps. But then again, I don't know either. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69597
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on film
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 07:57:41

    Hmmm .... I guessed I missed the implication that Jesus had sex with Mary
    Magdalene as a child in the film. The only thing that troubled me in the
    movie was the character Jesus - He always seemed to be so mad at
    everything/body. Other than that, the movie was pure speculation by the
    author.
    I guess I was not clear enough - I was basically talking about the Bible in
    general as being a Chronicle of the Jews - it is also a Chronicle of Jesus'
    life.
    As far as believing in the Bible and what is says - I don't go along with
    too much of the Old Testiment  - but the new is much more understandable of
    course. However, I do see flaws - contradictions - magic sounding things -
    bad dreams - and full of characters like Paul! He has always been a thorn in
    my side because I felt he hated women. Here he was suppose to preach to the
    gentiles - yet his hatred or what ever you want to call it for women shown
    through very often. Also I've often wondered if he was nothing but another
    Oral Roberts that has grand delusions of talking to God. He was converted on
    the Road to Damaskus (sp?) supposedly, but perhaps the religious fervor of
    the times got to him. Suddenly he thought God was telling him what to do! I
    will listen to the Apostles before I will someone like Paul that never knew
    Jesus. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69598
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 08:03:44

    Are you sure you want to answer my posts in private? I wished you wouldn't
    because other's might be interested in what we are both saying. Remember,
    you can use the S(kip) key on Rods posts to you too. Please think it over.
                                -=*) ANN (*=-
    P.S. I think Roger is an interested party.
    P.P.S. I hardly ever use the S(kip) key myself - might miss something! Ha

    Message: 69599
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Steve #69588
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 08:07:00

    NO!

    Message: 69600
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff/p.o.b.
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 08:30:10

    Then just what is that stuff over there ?

    Message: 69601
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: jeff/proof
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 08:53:22

    That's not exactly what I was talking about. What I am leading up to is
    the question of the nature of proof. What does it mean to prove something ?
    For example, when we talked about Cauchy's improvement of the definition
    of a Limit, you said that the new definition was more rigorous. Just what
    makes something more rigorous ? Is the definition of a limit a theorem or
    axiom ? If an axiom, then how can an axiom be more rigorous. If a theorem
    , is rigor the result of proving that the theorem is a consequence of a
    set of axioms ?

    Message: 69602
    Author: $ Ralph Blehm
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: ?
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 09:43:28

    If there is a beginning is there a end?

    Message: 69603
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: ralph/beginning
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 10:43:48

    with no end. Why, of course there is !

    Message: 69604
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Post 69569
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 11:23:31

            Still feeling 'glum' over the outcome of the Governor's race, and a
    few other problems, when I read post number 69569, I just cracked up with
    laughter.......    "Lucky".... ha ha ha ha ha...

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 69605
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: more puzzle
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 13:32:32

    Here is a problem for you abstract types. Consider a formal system, the MIU
    system. It uses three letters of the alphabet: M,I, U. The only permitted
    strings in the MIU-system are strings composes of those three letter. Here
    are some examples: MU, UIM, MUUMUU.

    There are three axioms:

    axiom I: If a string's last letter is I, you can add a U to the end of it.
    at the end.

    axiom II: consider Mx (where x is M, I, or U). You may replace Mx with Mxx.

    axiom III: If III occurs in a string, you may replace III with U.

    axiom IV: If UU occurs, you may delete UU from the string.

    Problem: Starting with MI derive MU.

    e.g., MI -> MIU by axiom I, MIU -> MIUMIU by axiom II, etc...

    Message: 69606
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Last
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 18:56:59

    That last message looks like what a pychiatrist does to come up with a
    diagnosis.  I used to work for a couple and had to type up their reports.
    Axis I  Adjustment disorder with depressive mood.
    etc...

    Message: 69607
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: JB
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 18:57:22

    OH thank you.  I feel so validated.

    Message: 69608
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Persia???
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 20:11:44

    Persia is Iran.  Iran *imports* oil.  (This is to 69554 by John Cummings.
    This message will most likely scroll before he gets a chance to see it.)

    Message: 69609
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryl/1900
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 20:14:43

    The bible (NT) has only been around 1900 years?  Do you mean that it wasn't
    written by contemporary witnesses?  My, my...

    Message: 69610
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul/69590
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 20:22:46

    You implied that Gillespie, et al, might try putting Mecham on the ballot in
    November.  State law prohibits a candidate in a primary from running for the
    same office in the general election.  Mecham therefore can't run for
    governor.  He could, however, run for dogcatcher, but I doubt that he could
    win a two-way race against an opponent who walked with a limp.

    Message: 69611
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: puzzle correction
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 20:36:18

    My example has a flaw in it. MIU -> MIUMIU should be MIU -> MIUIU

    Message: 69612
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Last
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 21:20:35

      You can't get there from here.

              We all live in a   ____nhnn________   yellow subroutine

    Message: 69613
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Jeff
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 21:21:19

      I take it you're still working on answers to my last two questions.  Or
    was the comment about the tattoos supposed to be an answer?

              We all live in a   ____nhnn________   yellow subroutine

    Message: 69614
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: War!
    Subject: MIU -> MIUIU
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 21:26:32

      You can't use axiom II to get from MIU to MIUIU, because you're taking the
    'x' to be 'IU', and 'x' can only be 'M', 'I', or 'U'.

              We all live in a   ____nhnn________   yellow subroutine

    Message: 69615
    Author: Darren Erickson
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Answer/NT
    Date: 09/14/90  Time: 23:02:33

    My understanding is that the NT has only been around since the third or
    fourth century AD, when true written communication set down the stories that
    had been around for that long.
    Am I wrong?
    -----Darren

    Message: 69616
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Previous
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 00:49:36

      I think that it was in the third or fourth century that the NT was
    *collected*; the individual books were written over a period of time,
    beginning in the first century, and passed around from church to church.

              We all live in a   ____nhnn________   yellow subroutine

    Message: 69617
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: John/will be
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 01:44:49

    It's too late at night to be eloquent.

    Message: 69618
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: Politics
    Subject: 3rd party
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 01:49:04

    Fortunately, that famous loser can't run as an independent(or so I was
    assured this spring by the exec director of the Rep. Party when I did a news
    story and asked that question.) They are planning to put up no-name Ray
    Russell, a Mechamite.

    Message: 69619
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/syrup
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 02:14:44

    If it *is* coca-cola syrup, then why did you say they print a disclaimer
    explaining that it is not?

    Message: 69620
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/puzzle
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 02:17:11

    I'm mum.

    Message: 69621
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: puzzle correction
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 02:18:59

    Ium.  (A TM mantra assigned by a Yogi from Brooklyn.)

    Message: 69622
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Steve/answers
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 02:21:26

    It was.  If you are asking genuine questions, you'll have to be a little
    more specific.

    Actually, I'm not too crazy about communism.  I like laissez faire
    capitalism quite a bit better, but like a mixed economy far better than
    both.

    Message: 69623
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger/proof
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 02:42:36

    With regard to Cauchy's formal definition of limit, it was mathematically
    "rigorous" in the sense that it gave a formal mathematical definition of
    limit, as opposed to the vague analogies and semi-compatible notions which
    had been in use prior to that time.  I don't recall saying that it was "more
    rigorous," merely rigorous in a mathematical sense.  The concept of rigour
    enters from the fact that his definition tells precisely what is and what
    isn't a limit. In a broader context, one does not prove an axiom.  One might
    conceivably call an axiom false if it employed symbols in such a manner as
    to be self-contradictory.  Proof in a system of analytic propositions refers
    to a process of demonstrating the validity of theorems as a formal deductive
    consequence of the axioms.  Proof of empirical statements is altogether
    different.  One does not conclusively prove or disprove empirical statements
    except in those rare cases where their truth is a necessary condition of
    their being stated.  The statement "I exist" is a tautology; the concept of
    existence is contained in the concept of "I".  The predicate adds nothing to
    the subject.  It is necessarily true in an immediate sense, however, since
    my existence is a necessary condition of my statement.  Personally, I do not
    feel that we have any logical justification whatsoever for most of our
    empirical assertions.  But since none is possible, none is necessary.  It is
    enough that we are prepared to indicate under what circumstances we consider
    empirical statements to be verified or refuted.  One can be called upon to
    justify a particular conclusion, and then one can appeal to the appropriate
    evidence.  But there can be no proof that what we take to be good evidence
    is really so.

    This is particularly true of empirical propositions involving physical
    entities, scientific entities (hypothetical physical entities inferred from
    "their" effects, the minds of other beings, and the past.
    In these cases, we depend entirely on the premises for our knowledge of the
    conclusion.  We have no access to physical entities except through our
    sense-experiences; we infer the existence of scientific entities only
    through their alleged effects; another being's mind is revealed to us only
    throuh the state of their body or through "communication"; the past is known
    only through records or our memories, the contents of which belong to the
    present.  Logically, our knowledge of the conclusion is indirect relative to
    our knowledge of the "evidence" which we use as premises.
    This relation, however, is not deductive.  There can be no description of
    our sense-experiences, however long and detailed, from which it is logically
    necessary that physical entities exist.  Statements about scientific
    entities are not formally deducible from any set of statements about their
    alleged effects.  Statements about a person's inner thoughts and feelings do
    not logically follow from statements about what we take to be their outward
    manifestations.  There is no formal contradiction in admitting thu existence
    of my memory experiences and yet denying that the corresponding past events
    had taken place.

    Nor is the relation inductive, at least not in any generally accepted sense.
    Forgetting for the moment that no entity/event logically entails any other,
    and pretending for the moment that the problem of induction is solvable (it
    isn't; it's a specious problem), there is still no inductive foundation for
    our arguments regarding the aforementioned things.  The things whose
    existence we claim to infer can never be given to us in experience, and
    therefore the arguments we make regarding them can never be tested.
    Again, overlooking the problem of induction, experimental evidence can carry
    us forward, but only at the same level.  On the basis of certain
    sense-experiences, we might predict the occurence of other sense
    experiences; from observations about the way a person is behaving we might
    predict how they will behave in the future: but induction does not permit us
    to jump from one level to the next; it does not permit us to pass from
    premises concerning the content of our sense-experiences to conclusions
    about physical objects, or from premises involving other people's overt
    behavior to conclusions about their minds.

    Message: 69626
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger/puzzle solutio
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 03:31:07

    That's easy.  Axiom number two is somewhat ambiguous, and allows a loophole
    which I do not believe you intended.  It says that you are allowed to
    replace the strings MM, MI, and MU with the strings MMM, MII, and MUU,
    correspondingly.  It does not state that one cannot also do this within the
    resultant string.

    MI     -->  MII      ...axiom II
    (MI)I  -->  (MII)I   ...axiom II
    MIII   -->  MU       ...axiom III

    Axioms I and IV are superfluous.

    Message: 69627
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Politics
    Subject: B.Dog/3rd party
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 05:21:47

     True enough. THey had Ray Russell, Mechamite par excellance in mind.
    However, he refused the honor, and according to yesterday's news, the move
    toward a 3rd party is dead, or almost dead, as it should be. The whole thing
    was apparently the brainchild of Jerry Gillespie, who I understand was/is
    one of the most abrasive, unreasonable people in the entire legislature, and
    oviously a lousy loser to boot.

    Message: 69628
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Philosophy
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 07:20:27

    (1)  If a tree falls down in the woods, and there's no one to hear it fall,
         does it make a sound?

    (2)  For that matter, if there's no one around, can a tree fall?  I mean,
         like, maybe there was someone there yesterday, and he saw the tree
         standing, and he'll be there tomorrow and see it lying on the ground,
         but maybe it didn't fall.  Maybe it ceased to exist when there was no
         one around to perceive it -- and tomorrow when there will be someone
         there again, it will exist again, but in a lying-down state instead
         of a standing-up one.

      Gee, this is something to *really* get us thinking.

              We all live in a   ____nhnn________   yellow subroutine

    Message: 69629
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Paul/3rd party
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 10:04:01

    Yeah, Gillespie not only saw Mecham go down to defeat, but he himself was
    defeated in the primary!!

    Message: 69630
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: 69612
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 10:27:38

    Good. Now prove it.

    Message: 69631
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: axiom II
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 10:29:51

    I saw nothing in the text that would lead me to believe that x is
    a member of the set {M, I, U}, only that x was a suffix of M.

    Message: 69632
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: jeff/puzzle
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 10:30:42

    mi, mi.

    Message: 69633
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: puzzle
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 10:33:39

    I agree. But steve has pointed out that I may not have restricted
    axiom II sufficient. i.e., that x is a member of the set {M, I, U}

    Message: 69634
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: philosophy
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 10:35:07

    That's why God exists. He watches everything so there is always an observer
    so we can exist. heavy, man.

    Message: 69635
    Author: Darren Erickson
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Steve/69628
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 12:47:33

    Boy, how philosophical can you get?
    Actually, sound is produced by air displacement.  The reception is
    irrelevant.  If there is air when it falls (if it falls - geez,) then sound
    is produced whether anyone hears it or not.
    Let's hear it for modern science!
    -----Darren

    Message: 69636
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: Politics
    Subject: 3rd party
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 13:28:38

    They won't give up. I guarantee that. There are too many people in this town
    of all stripes that don't like the lack of choice between Goddard and
    Symington.

    Message: 69637
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff/Science
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 14:22:17

    Well at least science changes.

    Why then does an iron needle point towards Canada?  If our center of this
    earth was magnetized then why wouldn't the needle point down towards the
    center.  Isn't there a large iron deposit up in Canada and that is why our
    compass points in that direction?  And isn't this large deposit slowly
    moving on a continuum?

    Message: 69638
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Steve / tree
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 14:35:38

    Yes of course the tree makes a sound even if there is no one around to hear
    it.  Actually the sound we are speaking of comes from shock waves.

    Man isn't important enough in this universe.  If man was not around all
    other things would continue and probably much better.  There would still be
    sounds and colors and all the other stuff including natural pollution.

    Message: 69639
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Darren
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 14:36:01

    Welcome aboard, welcome back.

    Message: 69640
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Darly.
    Date: 09/15/90  Time: 14:45:33

    Ann made a good point about skipping my messages.  I think you should keep
    your discussion on the main board.

    Yes I poke fun at your messages because your messages make me smile.  You
    are so very innocent and have obviously given your entire being to Christ.

    It does make life easier, doesn't it?  But I'll have to stay with reality if
    you don't mind as your embrace of religion has some far reaching
    consequences that are not desirable and in fact damaging to our society.

    But what possible difference can one more lost soul have on this planets
    outcome?  Plenty.  How does one go about waking a brother up?  I don't know
    but I keep trying.

    Someday you may again decide to join reality and if that time comes then I'm
    sure you will be a credit to the world.  Until then all I can expect from
    you is your babbeling and bible quotes that say nothing.

    By the way, I saved the file of your posts that Zak and I spent hours
    doing a search and replace on.  If you'd like to see them I'd gladly send
    them to you in mail as they would be instantly zapped into next week here.

    Take care and remember Daryl, we love you and hope for a speedy and
    necessary recovery.  You can make in on your own with a little help from
    your friends and a strong determination to stand on your own feet.  It can
    be rough as I can attest having brought many children into this world but it
    can be done.

    I'd like to hear, Daryl Quotes, just as I hear, Beck Quotes and Mann Quotes
    and original comments from many others who have their own mind and are
    capable individuals.

    Give it a try fellow and I'll bet you succeed.

Content of this site is © Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.