Apollo BBS Archive - September 1990

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.