What is it about "real Libertarians" that you think makes them unsuitable for participating in anything that isn't "part of the Constitutional structure of America"?
Absolutely nothing.
I find it amusing that some of them find themselves unsuitable for joining a political party, made a joke about it, tied it to an analogous joke about a procrastinators club and implied my aquaintence was attempting to herd cats, taking further amusment that all the while he is a cat himself expressing distress over the behaviour of cats and apparently oblivious of the fact.
And just to make sure people could understand I was approaching the issue from a not entirely serious point of view right off the bat I started things off with topic line that made a joke about orginizing anarchists.
And all of this analogous to the situation Freenet now finds itself in.
I could have also thrown in a joke about a "Non Joiners Club" and brought up Will Rogers' famous response to the question,"Do you belong to an orginized political party?"
"No, I'm a Democrat."
But I didn't.
I thought that would be overkill.
The personal point of view that leads one to the Libertarian political stand is one that tends to agree strongly with Washington's Farewell Address to Congress.
Indeed, you'll often find a link to it prominently displayed on the front page of their websites.
There is no law of nature that prevents cats from herding. They simply don't feel like it. It isn't in their personal nature.
Where on earth you got the idea that I made any statement about Libertarians being unable to belong to a political party out of my bemused observation
that by their nature they are not inclined to do so is beyond me.
I'm inclined to believe you made it up.
You wouldn't, by chance, belong to the Libertarian Party, would you?
Changing the parameters of the claim and supporting that claim with a faulty analogy of your own does not constitute a refutation of my analogy.
It isn't a wise idea to attack a man who ensconced in his own castle. It's best to catch him in the open field without his walls and retainers about him.
By that I mean to say that you have a couple of problems, one of which is that if you wish to assail evolution you must find its weak spot and attack it there. It has one. Since the formation of the cell is not that weak spot the best you can do is besiege, but not conquer.
The same, oddly enough, is true of people who choose to assail the Big Bang Theory. It has one, but few actually choose to attack it at that point and insist on attacking it where it is well defended.
To me this suggests that the attackers are making their assault in ignorance of the defenses. This is something a wise general should avoid whenever possible.
Your other problem is the failure of your analogy. It makes certain assumptions which are false. You'll find the refutation in any highschool chemistry book, although you will probably have a hard time recognizing them as such. I highly recommend the effort though.
I'll start you off with a hint:
How does carbon dioxide "evolve?"
I'm not unwilling to continue the discussion, per se, but experience has taught me that there's little point until the opposition has, by their own understanding, identified where the process of evolution is actually most difficult to explain; and b) by their own understanding identified what analogy you posed is false; and why.
You know the cartoon don't you? Here I am at the blackboard finishing up covering it with equations. Somewhere in the dense scribbling I have written "And then a miracle occurs."
If what you are claiming is miracle you have to point to that spot and yell, "AHA! Gotcha!"
Yes, it is. And it often takes some time to determine just how beneficial such work really is.
As an example how likely do you think Yasser Arafat would be to receive a Nobel for peace today?
How likely Jimmy Carter NOT to receive one?
Sometimes you have to wait a fairly long time just to make sure you have identified the proper party.
I can attest to this with my own family's history. My uncle Albert Schatz invented streptomyicin, and another got awarded the Nobel Prize for it only a few years later. We're so sorry, Uncle Albert.
This sad state of affairs is now "common" knowledge and had the Acadamy waited 10 years or so to see how things shook out Uncle Albert would have had his Nobel. As it is he now struggles just to get recongnition for what he did, since only those "in the know," know he did it.
How can a car possibly exist? It needs all of its parts or it is not a car. All of it's parts must fit and work with each other precisely so they could not have been designed seperately.
Do you see the fallaciousness of the argument?
Wheels, engines, suspension systems, steering mechinisms, all "evovled" prior to cars and for functions having nothing to do with cars.
It not necessary for a cell to spring into being as a whole entity. It is only necessary that it's basic componants can come into being and exist without the cell for some other purpose.
As it happens any close inspection of a cell quickly reveals that it isn't a single entity but a unit made up of preexisting parts, just as is a car.
Evolution does not build anew each orginism. It is and additive process. This is why you can make a good study of human anatomy by disecting a chicken. Things grow like an onion, accreting new layers of development atop the old.
This idea is absolutely critical. The current state of evolution is not the paragon of some process that replaces what went before. We can examine nearly the full range of the evolutionary process because all the older forms still exist.
Evolution does not erase its tracks. You can peel the onion.
Might not do any good. Jihad (which does not exist) has been declared on my posts moderated as Funny by the Illuminati ( who also do not exist).
I have offended, ummmmmm. . . Offendi.
Perhaps it is time to return my Gallagherian Sledge-O-Matic of wit to the closet of unmoderated forums from which it came and return you to my regular program of dry erudtion and supercilious snobbery.
Ian Clarke, Ian Clarke, riding through the land. ..
"Blimey, this redistribution of free information is trickier than I thought."
Look, you take a few million rugged individualists the try to throw one blanket over them this sort of thing is bound to happen. An acquiantence of mine once complained that they couldn't get people who were Libertarians to register as party members.
Well duh!
Parties aren't part of the Constitutional structure of America. Why would a real Libertarian join one?
The very concept is a bit like the proverbial procrastinators meeting or herd of cats.
This was bound to happen. It's also bound to blow over. Maybe it'll even result in some "genetic annealing" of the net.
I certainly hope they do something like that. I'm an insightful sort of fellow who searches for all sorts of things it turns out aren't available yet.
I'm looking forward to their taking the hint so I can read Terry Prachett in Latin by the light of my reissue of my favorite Alladin Oil Lamp while sitting in my Rubbermaid(tm) Yurt.
Slashdot Mirror
What does that make Pele?
Retired.
Or Buckminster Fuller?
Dead.
Got any harder ones?
KFG
Some of those "huddled, wretched masses" are, right at this very moment, sitting idly and contemplating the universe in all its glory.
Think about it.
KFG
You are incorrect. The whole "SCO thing" started with their claim that JFS is, as a UNIX derivitive work, their IP.
It is the core issue of their suit against IBM and everything that has followed out of it.
KFG
What is it about "real Libertarians" that you think makes them unsuitable for participating in anything that isn't "part of the Constitutional structure of America"?
Absolutely nothing.
I find it amusing that some of them find themselves unsuitable for joining a political party, made a joke about it, tied it to an analogous joke about a procrastinators club and implied my aquaintence was attempting to herd
cats, taking further amusment that all the while he is a cat himself expressing distress over the behaviour of cats and apparently oblivious of the fact.
And just to make sure people could understand I was approaching the issue from a not entirely serious point of view right off the bat I started things off with topic line that made a joke about orginizing anarchists.
And all of this analogous to the situation Freenet now finds itself in.
I could have also thrown in a joke about a "Non Joiners Club" and brought up Will Rogers' famous response to the question,"Do you belong to an orginized political party?"
"No, I'm a Democrat."
But I didn't.
I thought that would be overkill.
The personal point of view that leads one to the Libertarian political stand is one that tends to agree strongly with Washington's Farewell Address to Congress.
Indeed, you'll often find a link to it prominently displayed on the front page of their websites.
There is no law of nature that prevents cats from herding. They simply don't feel like it. It isn't in their personal nature.
Where on earth you got the idea that I made any statement about Libertarians being unable to belong to a political party out of my bemused observation
that by their nature they are not inclined to do so is beyond me.
I'm inclined to believe you made it up.
You wouldn't, by chance, belong to the Libertarian Party, would you?
That would explain it.
KFG
The best definition of an anarchist that I know of is someone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do.
KFG
It is the same part of the Constitution that allows the Boy Scouts of America to exist.
I made my point explicitly.
The point "I" made is your own.
KFG
And it is.
KFG
You are butting up against a point I did not make.
KFG
Ah, Looks like I'll have to aquire a turban then.
KFG
I responded to the claim as framed.
You have framed several and different claims.
Changing the parameters of the claim and supporting that claim with a faulty analogy of your own does not constitute a refutation of my analogy.
It isn't a wise idea to attack a man who ensconced in his own castle. It's best to catch him in the open field without his walls and retainers about him.
By that I mean to say that you have a couple of problems, one of which is that if you wish to assail evolution you must find its weak spot and attack it there. It has one. Since the formation of the cell is not that weak spot the best you can do is besiege, but not conquer.
The same, oddly enough, is true of people who choose to assail the Big Bang Theory. It has one, but few actually choose to attack it at that point and insist on attacking it where it is well defended.
To me this suggests that the attackers are making their assault in ignorance of the defenses. This is something a wise general should avoid whenever possible.
Your other problem is the failure of your analogy. It makes certain assumptions which are false. You'll find the refutation in any highschool chemistry book, although you will probably have a hard time recognizing them as such. I highly recommend the effort though.
I'll start you off with a hint:
How does carbon dioxide "evolve?"
I'm not unwilling to continue the discussion, per se, but experience has taught me that there's little point until the opposition has, by their own understanding, identified where the process of evolution is actually most difficult to explain; and b) by their own understanding identified what analogy you posed is false; and why.
You know the cartoon don't you? Here I am at the blackboard finishing up covering it with equations. Somewhere in the dense scribbling I have written "And then a miracle occurs."
If what you are claiming is miracle you have to point to that spot and yell, "AHA! Gotcha!"
Then we can resume in a moderated usenet forum.
KFG
Yes, it is. And it often takes some time to determine just how beneficial such work really is.
8 23 114,00.html
As an example how likely do you think Yasser Arafat would be to receive a Nobel for peace today?
How likely Jimmy Carter NOT to receive one?
Sometimes you have to wait a fairly long time just to make sure you have identified the proper party.
I can attest to this with my own family's history. My uncle Albert Schatz invented streptomyicin, and another got awarded the Nobel Prize for it only a few years later. We're so sorry, Uncle Albert.
This sad state of affairs is now "common" knowledge and had the Acadamy waited 10 years or so to see how things shook out Uncle Albert would have had his Nobel. As it is he now struggles just to get recongnition for what he did, since only those "in the know," know he did it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,
They have only rarely caused injustice by prudence. They have jumped the gun and caused injustice on a number of occasions.
Prudence now seems the wisest course to them.
KFG
And after The Blind Watchmaker read Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
It was inspired by TBW and serves as a sort of second sesmeter on the same material, covering it in more depth.
It's a supurb work and if the ideas of TBW are old hat to you you can just jump right in the deep end here.
Also highly recommended is The Beak of the Finch which watches evolution in actual action among the Galapogos finches.
KFG
How can a car possibly exist? It needs all of its parts or it is not a car. All of it's parts must fit and work with each other precisely so they could not have been designed seperately.
Do you see the fallaciousness of the argument?
Wheels, engines, suspension systems, steering mechinisms, all "evovled" prior to cars and for functions having nothing to do with cars.
It not necessary for a cell to spring into being as a whole entity. It is only necessary that it's basic componants can come into being and exist without the cell for some other purpose.
As it happens any close inspection of a cell quickly reveals that it isn't a single entity but a unit made up of preexisting parts, just as is a car.
Evolution does not build anew each orginism. It is and additive process. This is why you can make a good study of human anatomy by disecting a chicken. Things grow like an onion, accreting new layers of development atop the old.
This idea is absolutely critical. The current state of evolution is not the paragon of some process that replaces what went before. We can examine nearly the full range of the evolutionary process because all the older forms still exist.
Evolution does not erase its tracks. You can peel the onion.
KFG
You forgot to look up anecdote.
KFG
Might not do any good. Jihad (which does not exist) has been declared on my posts moderated as Funny by the Illuminati ( who also do not exist).
I have offended, ummmmmm. . . Offendi.
Perhaps it is time to return my Gallagherian Sledge-O-Matic of wit to the closet of unmoderated forums from which it came and return you to my regular program of dry erudtion and supercilious snobbery.
KFG
No, it's not an anecdote, which is why I put it in quotes.
It is testimony.
"Did you take out the trash?"
"Yes, honey."
That still leaves the issue of lying vermin, however.
"I did not have sex with that woman."
KFG
Ah, and I just thought they'd stopped making them or something.
I need a new motorcycle candle. The old just keeps blowing out.
KFG
(Cue music)
.
Ian Clarke, Ian Clarke, riding through the land. .
"Blimey, this redistribution of free information is trickier than I thought."
Look, you take a few million rugged individualists the try to throw one blanket over them this sort of thing is bound to happen. An acquiantence of mine once complained that they couldn't get people who were Libertarians to register as party members.
Well duh!
Parties aren't part of the Constitutional structure of America. Why would a real Libertarian join one?
The very concept is a bit like the proverbial procrastinators meeting or herd of cats.
This was bound to happen. It's also bound to blow over. Maybe it'll even result in some "genetic annealing" of the net.
KFG
Freenet would be the anemia (sp?) of the command-and-control society
Who could just eat their spinich and feel much better.
Damn, if only Bill Gates and John Ashcroft hadn't watched so much Popeye as kids we might have had them.
KFG
How about the story the other day where they actually interviewed a spammer who said he "loved" unsubscribe emails?
It may well be an "anecdote," but it's an anecdote straight from the pigs mouth.
KFG
Well I hope they do a better job than Amazon.
.get recommended Barbie's Swan Lake.
I haven't a freakin' clue why they think I might be interested in Bette Midler Sings the Rosemary Clooney Songbook.
Buy Terry Gilliam's Brasil. .
And what makes them think I use underwear anyway?
KFG
If I caught my wife going through my sock drawer I'd say, "Ummmm, looking for something in particular?"
If I caught the FBI going through my sock drawer I'd call my lawyer.
KFG
I certainly hope they do something like that. I'm an insightful sort of fellow who searches for all sorts of things it turns out aren't available yet.
I'm looking forward to their taking the hint so I can read Terry Prachett in Latin by the light of my reissue of my favorite Alladin Oil Lamp while sitting in my Rubbermaid(tm) Yurt.
Oh, I think maybe you meant trendy people.
That would be different.
KFG
Yeah,of course the first thing I did when reading this story was check to see if I had one.
Nope. I don't rate.
Well why the bloody hell not, that's what I want to know. What the hell does a guy have to do to get survielled around here?
KFG
It could be fun (or incriminating!) to see what you've searched for in the past.
Everything you've ever searched for is incriminating to someone.
KFG