Apollo BBS Archive - September 1990

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.