### Apollo BBS Archive - September 11, 1990

    Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 69410
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Mike/vote
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 02:16:31

    Five and six.  In that order.

    Message: 69411
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dean/fraud
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 02:31:10

    Well, you can't have it both ways.  Either intent is too subjective to
    determine and you must judge truth by the legal meaning of the statements,
    in which case an escape clause is superfluous, or intent is the crux of the
    matter, and we can judge whether someone merely makes an "unwittingly false"
    statement or actually makes a legally false statement with intent.
    Personally, I don't think you can legislate truth into language.  Words and
    meanings are far too numerous and ambiguous.  You'd end up with, if not a
    literally infinite tangle of cross-referential laws, then a finite amount so
    large it would be unmanageable.
    The quotes in the second example are not lies.  They are not lies because
    they include ellipses to indicate editing.  They are certainly perversions
    of truth.  And if you insist, remove the quotes; the example is just as
    valid without them.

    Again, you can't have it both ways.  In order to "apply fraud standards," we
    either have to "micro regulate every phrase of business" (because that's the
    only objective way to apply legal standards of truth or falsity to
    statements) or we judge by intent.  And since "intentional perversion of
    truth for the purpose of material gain or deprivation of rights" is our
    definition of fraud, it seems clear that judging intent is not only
    unavoidable, but crucial.

    Message: 69412
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dean/Bayer
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 02:35:34

    The chemical formula for aspirin doesn't change.  I don't have exact figures
    to show what Bayer's per aspirin profit are, but it seems obvious that if
    they charge twice as much than a competitor, they make substantially more.
    As for promotion, obviously it brings them this substantial increase in
    profit, both by allowing them a higher per aspirin price, and by securing a
    vastly greater market share.

    Message: 69413
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod/Bayer
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 02:37:45

    Who knows what Bayer pays its lackeys.  They probably get paid what the
    lackeys of the other company are; a pittance.

    Message: 69414
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Roger/existentialism
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 02:44:32

    I have never been able to determine to my satisfaction what existentialism
    is.  It seems to embrace existential philosophy (Heidegger, who for me is
    totally unintelligable), philisophy of existence (Jaspers, Marcel, neither
    of which have I read), and just plain existentialism, (Sartre).  All of
    these I understand are somehow influenced by Kierkegaard (wait, maybe it's
    him I find unintelligable).
    I once read "No Exit," but it merely inspired me to write a parody called
    "Fire Exit: or sneak out the back of the theatre."

    Well, you see where I'm at.

    Message: 69415
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Numbers and Nature
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 02:45:23

    "We know there are five bricks because we can map the numerals '1' ... '5'
    one-to-one onto the bricks . . . Now assume that we don't count.  Isn't the
    '5ness' of the group of bricks still there?  Yes, it is still there for I
    can see that the group of bricks is different from 4ness and 3ness ... and
    manyness and nothingness."

    But *can* you see 5ness without counting?  And is 5ness a property of the
    bricks or an abstract unordered classification of an aggregate?  Does not
    the 5ness exist whether you are considering bricks, balls, or anything else,
    including purely abstract elements which do not represent *any* concretes?
    If you add a brick, do not the same bricks to which you previously
    attributed the quality of 5ness now possess the quality of 6ness?
    Consider a certain type of retardee.  He sees the same bricks which you do.
    He can see that one group of bricks is different from the other, because
    there is something he sees in one aggregate that he doesn't see in the
    other.  But unlike you, that something is a brick, not 5ness or 6ness.  5 is
    a symbol with an abstract relationship to 6.  These symbols are not tied to
    anything concrete; they have no empirical content or meaning.

    I would distinguish a matching process from a counting process.  If we match
    bricks from various piles, individually, and if we exhaust all piles
    simultaneously, we have not said anything about the *number* of bricks in
    any pile.  If we exhaust one pile before another, we have said nothing about
    the *number* of bricks in either pile.

    Now, when it comes to applying words like "equal," "more," and "less," to
    the piles, something extremely subtle is going on.  We can say that 5=5,
    5<6 and 6>5. But what are we really saying when we apply the terms to the
    result of this matching process?  What are we saying when we say that one
    pile of bricks is "equal" to another, or that one pile has "more" or "less"
    than another pile?  Do these terms describe physical objects or phenomena?
    Note that in order to use them, we must compare at least two piles.  What we
    are doing, I think, is defining a logical relationship between the piles.  I
    think that if we use these terms to describe the results of such a matching
    process, and if we don't allow the concept of counting to sneak in, as it
    almost invariably does at an unconscious level, the sentence "This pile and
    that pile are equal" reduces to a description of the matching process itself
    (i.e., "The piles were exhausted simultaneously").  Similarly, to say that
    "This pile has less bricks in it than that pile does" is to say no more than
    "This pile was exhausted before that pile".   I think that the terms "equal"
    "less" and "more" seem quantitatively imbued because when we conduct a
    matching process such as this, we know through experience (and perhaps
    instinct) that *if we did* count the piles, cardinalities and cardinal
    relationships would emerge; and we associate certain general cardinal
    relationships with certain specific matching process results.  For example,
    pile A is exhausted before pile B. Now, you know from experience that if you
    were to count each pile, and A has a cardinality of n, while B has a
    cardinality of m, n was true for me, but it no longer is...

    Message: 69430
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Cliff's last
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 18:57:48

    Yup, that's the solution.  Jump onto the Republican bandwagon and be just
    like everyone else in this state.

    Message: 69431
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod / Crack-A-Cola
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 20:04:43

         I dunno if I mentioned this already, but Revco Drug Stores still carry
    the 'coca-cola' syrup as a OTC medical item. I believe it is two or three
    dollars per bottle.
         I always suspected that prune juice was involved in Dr. Pepper. What
    about Mr. Pibb?

    Message: 69432
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Rod / Bible
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 20:21:53

        Of course the Gospels do not document every single activity of Jesus.
    The very last verse in the Gospel of John says just that. What is important
    is that everything that we need to know concerning Jesus' life is recorded
    in Scripture. For instance, we know that Christ was fully human - therefore
    we do not need to have recorded for us that he used the bathroom, blew his
    nose, et cetera. And at the same time, we know from Scripture that "...He
    was tempted in every way we are - [yet He remained] without sin." (Hb 4.15b,
    NET). Therefore we do not have to have recorded that He didn't commit
    adultery, for it would take an imbecile to interpret this passage any other
    way.
         Through Scripture, God has revealed to us everything that we need to
    know. It stands to reason that we are not going to know, or even be able to
    know, all that there is to know about God. You can't know all that there is
    to know about me, and I'm no greater or less a being that you are. Even
    moreso, we can't know all that there is to know about God, who is infinitely
    greater than us, because we are not God. Of course, to those that believe,
    there will be a day when, once glorified, we will have our questions and
    frustrations concerning God's will and actions answered. Until then,
    anything that God does not reveal to us about Himself, we have no need, and
    definitely no right, to speculate. To know the God of the Bible, you need to
    read the Bible. If you try to seek God without knowing Christ, your search
    is in vain.

    Message: 69433
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Ann on Christ
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 20:48:49

       Do you have any idea what you are saying? Of course, you are not the
    first one with the desire to be like God. Satan has been tempting mankind
    with that delusion since the beginning of time [Ge 3.5].
       Tell me what you base your belief in 'human godhood' upon. God is
    omnipresent. Do you know of anyone who is omnipresent? God is omniscient. Do
    you know of anyone who knows everything? [THINKING one knows everything does
    not count.] God is omnipotent. Do you know anyone who can transcend the
    boundaries of time and nature? And God is holy. Do you know of anyone who
    is without any sin? And God does not change. Do you know of anyone
    who is without change? [Dick Clark does not count.]
        Furthermore, if we are all gods, then why is this world the complete
    wreck that it is? If we truly are gods, then we are doing a really lousy job
    of it.
        And again, if we are all gods, then what is the purpose in being a god?
    Being 'god' implies a soveriegnty. It is as silly as having a kingdom full
    of kings and queens. In this example, what is the point of being king or
    queen in the first place?
        Christ says that we can do what He did, ONLY through faith in God, and
    even then, it is not of ourselves, but God working through us.
        I agree that Christ is to be our example, and we are to live our lives
    as He did. But although it is our goal to live Christlike lives, we are
    never going to succeed in living a life exactly like Christ's. That is why
    it is called "being ChristLIKE," and not "being CHRIST."

    Message: 69434
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Ann Continued
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 20:52:22

        And if living a certain way, or following a certain set of rules is
    supposed to make us sinless, then why did Christ die for our sins? The Jews
    had a multitude of God-given laws, and although the laws were good, they
    never succeeded in making anyone sinless, much less "god." When Christ died,
    it was to take our sins away from us, something we could not do on our own.

        I'll continue this later tonight.

    Message: 69435
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: daryl/infinity
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 20:55:39

    How about sufficiently greater than. Seems that infinitely greater than
    is hyperbolic. In fact, my good fellow, where does it say in the Bible
    (although the Bible is no authority in this matter) that God is infinitely
    greater than we are ?

    Message: 69436
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: daryl/christlike
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 20:58:11

    What a copout. If you don't like one aspect of Christ's life --- I don't
    have to BE Christ, I just have to approximate Him, you know, be like him.
    So, I'll let Christ turn His other cheek (after all, why should I be
    a sucker) while I arm myself to the teeth to blow the sucker away.

    Message: 69437
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/more diabolism
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 21:03:33

    Another problem, I think, is that the very act of defining a "pile" or
    "group" of bricks (or anything else) imposes an abstract relationship on
    real elements which does not exist physically.  That is, in arbitrarily
    deciding which discrete objects you include *as elements of a set*, you
    implicitly generate a cardinality for that set.  You may not be able to
    apprehend that cardinality without consciously counting if the set exceeds
    a certain cardinality (i.e., more than eight is "many"...unless you're a
    mathematical idiot savant, in which case you might immediately "see" 111 as
    the cardinality of a set of spilled matches), but you will, given experience
    , be able to apprehend cardinal relationships between such sets, and the
    accuracy of such inferences will depend on the difference between the number
    of elements in each set (i.e. it's easy to "see" that a pile of 100 bricks
    has a greater cardinality than a pile of 10 bricks of the same size, but
    the cardinal relationship between a pile of 100 and a pile of 99 will most
    likely elude you unless you count each pile).

    I'm beginning to wonder exactly how much of a culprit language itself is in
    confusing the abstract with the real.  Words frequently define abstractions,
    rather than represent descriptively.  The more one scrutinizes language, the
    more one strips the flesh of abstraction from the skeleton of reality.  One
    begins to wonder if in the end, the skeleton itself will not dissolve,
    and all we shall be left with is a ghost.

    Message: 69438
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Daryl/Revco & coke
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 21:04:36

    Sounds like another urban legend to me.

    Message: 69439
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Astronomy
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 21:10:23

    Anyone into it?  I received a software catalogue with an ad for a really
    neat sounding program called EZCosmos.  Almost makes me interested in
    astronomy.  I'll post the description if there is any interest.  (IBM
    software, $49.95)

    Message: 69440
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 21:30:34

    You only have until Monday to register back to Libertarian to vote in the
    next election.

    Message: 69441
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Next Election?
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 22:18:32

            I am REGISTERED as as Republican and will Vote in the next election
    as a Republican.   I am going to see if I can get Sandy to switch back to
    Republican before the next election.  Being a Libertarian is a WASTE
    of time as I found out.

            Steiger is in 4th place as of this post...  BLEEEHHHHTH! Mecham is
    doing BETTER then I had thought, as of the last I heard, he was 2nd?   And
    the guys I really dislike are in first place (Goddard & Symington)

            Hey..... I voted, so I have the RIGHT to Bitch!

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

    P.S.  I will vote for Symington over Goddard....  anyday!

    Message: 69442
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger/Models
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 22:41:58

      Well, here's my opinion of models:
      In general, the model represents all of our understanding of some
    phenomenon, and our presumptions of things that we haven't observed as well
    as being a condensation of all that we *have* observed.
      That means that, as soon as we observe a phenomenon and write down our
    observations, we have made a model.  We can't apply the scientific method
    without it.
      Backing up a bit, I have to admit that we often have more than one model,
    so that we can use the simplest one that gives us results accurate enough to
    suit us.  For instance, if we divide up a two-acre plot to build a school,
    and want to decide where to put the buildings in relation to the fences,
    gates, and playground, and figure out where the electrical and plumbing
    connections should go, we don't bother with spherical trigonometry, even
    though we're doing all this on a secion of the Earth's surface, which is a
    sphere, not a plain.  We use Euclidian geometry, which is good enough,
    because the area in question is *nearly* a plane.

          ======  Pascal  =(O,O)=  Hoot!  MacProgrammer  ======

    Message: 69443
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Jeff
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 22:42:49

      Yeah.  That was fine.  I just wanted, once, to see you answer a question
    instead of arguing with it.

            ======  Pascal  =(O,O)=  Hoot!  MacProgrammer  ======

    Message: 69444
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean/Fraud
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 22:47:35

      Well, explain what you think about fraud in this example:
      P T Barnum's museum of weird stuff had a whole lot of things you could see
    just by milling around after paying the admission fee, and a few more things
    you could pay extra for once you got in.
      For instance, one extra-cost exhibit was the "MAN EATING CHICKEN" display.
    You paid your money, went in, and by-golly, there was a man eating chicken,
    right there before your very eyes.  Yessir, that's what he was doing.
    Eating chicken, just like many of us do, but most of us can't get people to
    pay to see us do it.
      Any fraud here?

                  ====   Pascal  =(O,-)=  Wink!  MacProgrammer   ====

    Message: 69445
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean/Fraud
    Date: 09/11/90  Time: 22:54:31

      Well, explain what you think about fraud in this example:
      P T Barnum's museum had signs pointing to the free things that were of
    major interest, so people knew where to go to get to the things they
    especially wanted to see.  Like the scale model of Niagra Falls, popular
    among honeymooners who couldn't afford to go see the real McCoy.
      There was a sign "TO THE LIONESS -->", and people would follow the sign
    through the turnstyle, down the corridor, around the corner, and into the
    room with the lioness and her cubs, and they said, "Ooh.  Ahh.  See the mama
    lion and her babies."  When they got tired they went back to the main area.
      There was a sign "TO THE TIGRESS -->", and people would follow the sign
    through the turnstyle, down the corridor, around the corner, and into the
    room with the tigress and her cubs, and they said, "Ooh.  Ahh.  See the mama
    tiger and her babies."  When they got tired they went back to the main area.
      There was a sign "TO THE EGRESS -->", and people would follow the sign
    through the turnstyle, down the corridor, around the corner, out the egress,
    and onto the street, and they said, "Ooh.  Ahh.  See the new word we learned
    today."  They either got embarassed and went home, or paid to get back into
    the museum.
      Was there any fraud here?

             ===  Pascal  =(-,O)=  Wink!  MacProgrammer  ===

    Message: 69446
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: understanding
    Date: 09/12/90  Time: 00:08:43

    I'd prefer the word "representing," but I shan't be a stickler.

    Message: 69447
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dr. Pepper & prunes
    Date: 09/12/90  Time: 00:13:42

    From "Rumor!" :

    "According to a company spokesperson, Dr. Pepper does not, nor has it ever
    contained prune juice or any prune flavorings.  This rumor has been around
    for generations, and the company gently refutes it in a brochure it sends to
    curious consumers.  The text contains this statement: There are 23 flavors
    and other ingredients (none of which are prunes) that produce the inimitable
    flavor of Dr. Pepper."

    Message: 69448
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff/Bayer
    Date: 09/12/90  Time: 00:27:43

    But Bayer is not being monopolistic in their business as I thought you
    indicated in a post of yesterday.  They are leaving a wide berth for other
    companies to come in and make a brand that sells for a cheaper price.

    Obviously Bayer is being supported by enough people to succeed in business.
    Perhaps their plant is based near a grove of prime elm trees or perhaps they
    buy the elm bark material in lots that are graded, Grade A Fancy, Prime,
    Choice and Leftover.  Bayer may buy the best and leave the other grades for
    generic companies.  I don't know.

    Message: 69449
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Mecham
    Date: 09/12/90  Time: 00:31:31

    Good post on Mecham.  You have put your finger on questions that knaw at my
    brain.  Thanks for expressing them so well.

    Message: 69450
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Ann.
    Date: 09/12/90  Time: 00:32:58

    Now, now, Ann, what you expressed is NOT in the bible so just give it up now
    before it's too late.   Rod

    Message: 69451
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl, Mr. Pibb
    Date: 09/12/90  Time: 00:35:33

    That was roach hair and sock droppings, I believe.

    Message: 69452
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Religion
    Date: 09/12/90  Time: 00:38:19

    SO, what you are saying is that we have access to everything we need to
    know and it's all in the holy bible.  Well hell, I'll just toss out my
    library and just read it... but I want to get the copy with the pictures.

    Thanks for the tip, pal.

    Message: 69453
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Revco & Coke
    Date: 09/12/90  Time: 00:45:40

    Yes, it's true.  I was wandering around Scaggs Drug Store at 7th Av. and
    Osborn a year or two ago, looking at the different labels of "tincures" and
    "herbs" and such and THERE IT WAS, Cola Extract and it was around $3. a
    small bottle, perhaps an ounce.

    I know because I bought some and I believe it helped, among other things,
    stomach upsets.  But it tasted just like the thick syrup that you get on
    occasion at a 7-11 soda fountain stand when you see a shot of goo come
    flying out with the carbonate of water.

    It came from Peru where it was grown then sent to N.J. and processed into
    the thick syrup.  There remains about 2% of the Cocaine alkaloid in the
    syrup but more if the machinery isn't cleaned often.

    Message: 69454
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff/Astronomy
    Date: 09/12/90  Time: 00:47:36

    Yes, I am interested but only in the area of Quantum Mechanics.  Now I am
    looking for a quantum wrench.

    No, I'm serious.

    Message: 69455
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: MacGregor/Chicken
    Date: 09/12/90  Time: 00:50:36

    They should have given that job to the Fat Man.  No, it was fair because of
    its amusement value.

    Message: 69456
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: MacGregor/EGRESS
    Date: 09/12/90  Time: 00:52:48

    The patrons paid to learn a new word.

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